First, to be refined means to be refined, to grasp the main points and not to repeat them.
Dan Nuo, a Hong Kong barrister and an American barrister, gives people the impression that he is Kan Kan and talks endlessly. The effect is that he fights with others and turns Qian Kun around. Therefore, the first impression is that lawyers must be able to speak, articulate and aggressive. However, just because a lawyer dares to speak and can speak does not mean that a lawyer will certainly speak. The lawyer's wild words can only make people sleepy. The lawyer's rambling speech can only lead to the boredom of the court. The lawyer's speech in the trial must be concise. Only by grasping the essentials can we move the audience and influence the court's decision.
In judicial practice, lawyers often digress and are very verbose. For example, when a criminal case is in court, a lawyer issues a preface to the defense, explaining the legal basis for the lawyer to defend the defendant in court. First, they read out the provisions of Article 32 of the Criminal Procedure Law on the scope of defenders, followed by Article 25 of the Lawyers Law on lawyers, then read out the provisions of Article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Law on the duties of defenders, and then discussed Article 165438 of the Criminal Procedure Law. One to two, 20 minutes have passed, which only shows this irrelevant problem. After the lawyer's entrustment procedure was submitted to the court, the court has verified his identity as a defender. What's the practical significance of saying so much? When defending the defendant of the crime of corruption, if we think that the defendant's subject qualification does not meet the requirements of the crime of corruption of state functionaries, then the purpose of defending the defendant's innocence can be achieved by clarifying the subject of the crime. However, some lawyers have to talk about the other three elements of the crime of corruption in addition to the cancellation of the subject qualification. As we all know, as the four elements of crime, the subject and object of crime, the subjective and objective aspects of crime, without the constitutive elements of crime, crime will not be established. Therefore, for different cases, it is only necessary to prove that the defendant's behavior does not have the elements of a crime and has reached the sufficient conditions for the innocent defense, so there is no need to gild the lily.
Second, accuracy means accurately grasping the facts and applying the law accurately.
Taking facts as the basis and law as the criterion is the basic principle of justice. Lawyers should also work hard on facts and laws. The law is strict. Lawyers are legal persons, so they must speak accurately. Lawyers can accurately grasp the case by carefully consulting the file and repeatedly consulting the file. Only after the facts are clarified can we target the prosecution with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. Only by grasping the shortcomings of the prosecution's evidence and the loopholes of the other party's evidence can we attack the prosecution's accusation and the other party's point of view. Whether the defendant's behavior constitutes a crime, whether there are statutory or discretionary mitigating circumstances, and whether the other party has breached the contract, in addition to finding the factual basis from the file, we should also be familiar with every article and paragraph of the law. Generally speaking, in defense, only the prosecution or the opposing lawyer will be given a handle, saying that the file materials reflect or have evidence to prove how to say it, or how the law stipulates it. If the prosecution or the opposing lawyer investigates it, it will inevitably put itself in an embarrassing situation.
Marking papers is the basic skill of lawyers. How many interrogation notes were made for the defendant? Are there any discrepancies in several interrogation transcripts? Where do you go in and out? * * * Is there any difference in the confessions of several defendants in the same criminal case? What is the difference? Is there any other evidence to support the defendant's statement Is there any physical evidence or documentary evidence? Have the physical evidence and documentary evidence been submitted to the court? Do you have any photos? Have you checked yourself? Is the evidence chain or evidence system of the prosecution formed? Is there a loophole? What is the evidence of the defense's guilt? What is the defense's evidence of innocence? Where is the discrepancy between innocent evidence and guilty evidence? How to exclude unfavorable evidence? How to demonstrate the probative force of innocent evidence? Is the evidence of your own argument reliable? Does the prosecution have any other evidence? How to fortify? As a criminal case, so many question marks must be answered by marking. Only by solving these question marks one by one can we say that we have a basic grasp of the facts of the case. In civil cases, we can see the plaintiff's claim and the evidence of the plaintiff's point of view through marking. By analyzing different types of evidence and the interests of the parties, we can judge the probative force of different evidence. By consulting the evidence of both sides, we can analyze each other's debate ideas, find out each other's advantages and disadvantages, and also find out our own shortcomings. As the saying goes, know yourself and know yourself. Lawyers can make full use of their right to read papers, find the right entry point to protect the legitimate rights and interests of clients and make themselves invincible.
New laws are constantly promulgated, and judicial interpretations often appear. If you don't actively learn new laws and judicial interpretations, lawyers will lose their housekeeping skills and their careers over time. Taking the crime of misappropriation of public funds as an example, in addition to the provisions of Article 384 of the Criminal Law, the court also promulgated the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Misappropriation of Public Funds (1effective on May 9, 1998) and the Interpretation on How to Determine Misappropriation of Public Funds for Personal Use (20061October 26++0 10). On April 28th, 2002, the 27th meeting of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) also passed the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 384 of the Criminal Law, and the Procuratorate also issued the Reply on Asking for Instructions on whether State functionaries can be convicted of misappropriating unspecified public property (which came into effect on March 28th, 2000) and the Reply on Legal Issues Concerning Misappropriation of Unemployment Insurance Fund and Basic Living Security Fund for Laid-off Workers (2003). If you only hold an old collection of laws and regulations, and intend to write defense words and proxy words to express your arguments, it may be ridiculous, because your arguments will conflict with the new judicial interpretation.
Third, stability means being steady, well-founded and well-founded.
As the saying goes, there is no reason to say. Lawyers don't have to shout at the top of their lungs. You must convince people clearly, calmly and completely. If you use four or two kilograms, the needle hidden in your face is more powerful and the effect may be better. Court debate is not street fighting, and everything is often counterproductive. A lawyer should be a cultured legal person, and should calmly face challenges and treat the world calmly. The lawyer's speech should be meticulous, logical and well-founded, so as to be convincing, touching and finally accepted by the court. The circle is not round, so we can't justify it. We would rather delete these arguments, so as not to leave the court with the feeling that lawyers are demanding.
There are all kinds of people over 100 years old. The quality of the parties is uneven and varies widely. It is no longer news that low-quality clients abuse lawyers in court. It is not news that vulgar people scold lawyers, but it may be news that lawyers scold clients. Confronting the client will only reduce the value of the lawyer. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend the defendant and represent the client. If there are personal insults, lawyers should ask the court to stop and admonish the abusive party in order to maintain good court order. If the prosecution's sudden attack on lawyers is unexpected and lawyers are not prepared in advance, lawyers should calmly deal with it, carefully identify whether there are obvious loopholes in the prosecution's point of view and logic, and must not act rashly. If the prosecution's view is fully established, lawyers can't argue to save the so-called face. The court is a place of reasoning. Through the gradual clarification of the facts and the demonstration of the application of the law, it is the ideal goal that lawyers and prosecutors should pursue to help the court find out the facts and determine the provisions of the applicable law, and finally realize judicial justice. Lawyers should choose their words carefully, but don't be swayed by considerations of detail. The word "gathering people" often appears in several articles of the original hooliganism crime. As the saying goes, one person is private, two are public, and three are public. If the "party" does not exceed three people, is it a "party"? You can argue. But under normal circumstances, what clothes the defendant wore that day and what the weather was like at the time of the crime can be regarded as details and ignored unless it is useful to distinguish the authenticity of the evidence.
Whether it is a defense word or a proxy word, you should make a clear argument at the beginning of your speech, and then demonstrate it reasonably. If the prosecution's evidence forms a chain or system, not only confessions, but also witness and material evidence, and there is no evidence to the contrary * or evidence that affects guilt, lawyers should give up the innocence defense with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. If you want to prove that your client has the right of uneasy defense, you should not only make a theoretical exposition, but also produce evidence that your client should have the right of uneasy defense, instead of relying on imagination and speculation. Otherwise, it is easy to be broken to argue reluctantly in order to let the parties see that they are performing their duties. Arguments on opinions without factual basis and legal support will only convey one's ignorance.