There should be three kinds of friends who ask such questions-
The first category: not the parties. However, pay attention to the law and the court's judgment on the case. Just ask and learn more; The second category: the parties. Want to go to court, afraid of going to court, so we have to go to court; The third category: lawyers and legal workers who have just started their careers.
I don't handle many first-instance cases. The second trial and retrial of cases are my main business. So, my experience is: it's really difficult. Reason-the main reason: upholding the original judgment is a long-standing stubborn disease in judicial trials. Therefore, lawyers are mostly regarded as taboo areas.
I have done so much, not because I am better than a competent lawyer, but because a competent lawyer is unwilling to get involved. Therefore, I have more choices than other lawyers.
I'll talk to my client and lawyer about this.
As far as the parties are concerned-if your interests are dispensable, then give them up. Because the risk is not worth taking. If your interests are huge and you think you have really been "wronged or wronged", then it is worthwhile to fight this lawsuit. If the original lawyer also thinks that the judgment is wrong, then resolutely fight on; If your fundamental interests are damaged and you can't bear it, then be prepared to fight; If the lawyer advises you to give up and his reasons convince you, then give up resolutely.
Therefore, for the parties, you are faced with the question of whether to fight or not.
As far as a lawyer is concerned, you must be in the right position: you must be tendentious: you must help the client win the case (no matter how many trials): you must be neutral: you are not the client, but his legal adviser. When you stand in the perspective of the parties and use your knowledge (including consulting peers-preferably professional judges you are familiar with), you should fight, then fight; If you come to the conclusion that you can't fight, convince the parties to give up.
The conclusion must be proved.
Enter the professional channel below-
In civil cases, try to find new evidence. Administrative cases and criminal cases, don't bother-reasons; The court will hardly adopt it.
Or start with "no new evidence":
1. Try to send the case back for retrial. As long as you send it back for retrial, you can almost change your sentence. The higher court is not embarrassed, and the work is easy to do. So the main program is wrong and the facts are unclear.
2. Try to change the sentence. The main point is factual error, and the second point is legal error.
3. If the second instance is judged to maintain the first instance, it will induce the second instance to copy the viewpoint of the first instance, and hide the reasons for retrial or protest in the words of appeal or agency (defense). It indicates the beginning of supervising programmers.
The most important thing is to collect and learn from precedents. The word appeal and agency (defense) can quote relevant viewpoints. After the trial, the printed case will be submitted to the presiding judge.
Difficulties are beautiful.