Contingency skills in unexpected situations
In the trial, sometimes the witness's testimony will change, sometimes new facts will be discovered, and sometimes the debate time is shorter than estimated in advance. Once these situations occur, if you still argue according to your original ideas and methods, you may put yourself at a disadvantage. Therefore, we must take contingency measures to get rid of the predicament. Generally speaking, the commonly used emergency measures are:
1. Chase him and force him to tell the truth.
During the trial, lawyers often ask the collegial panel to allow the witnesses he has investigated beforehand to testify in court, but for various reasons, witnesses sometimes change the true testimony they have provided to lawyers, or make vague statements or make false statements. If the witness's testimony is crucial, it will undoubtedly affect the judgment of the case. In this case, the lawyer must quote the investigation deeds collected in advance to cross-examine the witness and force him to testify objectively. For example, in the trial and investigation of a legal person joint venture contract dispute case, because several important witnesses were cadres originally sent to the joint venture, some of them were vague, and some made false statements when testifying, and all the responsibilities for losses and production suspension were shifted to the defendant. Obviously, their testimony in court is not the same as that provided to defense lawyers in advance, or even completely different. Their perjury not only affected the handling of the case. To this end, the lawyer asked the witness immediately after obtaining the consent of the presiding judge. Are you the director of the production workshop in the sugar factory? A:? what's up Q:? Is your workshop production management normal? A:? Normal. ? Q:? Since it is normal, is it normal for you to join us in March 10 and say that the quality of raw materials is poor and you can add or subtract the original formula at will? A:? I'm talking about the general situation, and there are also the situations I mentioned before. ? Because the defendant's lawyer used this way of questioning, many witnesses admitted the problems existing in the plaintiff's management of the joint venture production, which indirectly proved the falsity of the witness's testimony in court and the authenticity of the witness before the court, thus laying a solid factual foundation for their defense in the debate stage. It can be seen that it is undoubtedly effective to use the objective testimony made by the witness at the first time to get to the bottom of the matter when the witness is emotionally unstable. Of course, ask questions appropriately and avoid interrogative questions.
2. Prompt contradictions and strive for initiative
In the same case, there may be contradictions between evidence and evidence. As long as you study the case file carefully, you can find these contradictions completely. But sometimes due to carelessness, this problem is often discovered only when the relevant evidence is presented in court, which may affect the handling of the case. At this point, lawyers should quickly respond to new situations, prompt contradictions, and strive for the initiative in handling cases. For example, in a robbery and murder case, the defendant confessed that he killed the staff on duty in an industrial and commercial office at night and robbed some property for money; Later, in order to rob money, he killed two people successively. During the court investigation, the defendant confessed that he stabbed the victim in the industrial and commercial office and immediately absconded with the money. The court produced photos of the scene investigation. The defender suddenly thought that the photo clearly showed several knife marks on the neck of the deceased when marking the paper, which was obviously contradictory to the confession that the defendant had only stabbed one knife. So the defender asked the defendant:? You stabbed him several times, only once. ? Is it really a knife? Knives, of course. ? In the photo shown by the court just now, there are three knife marks on the neck of the deceased. How could he only stab once? Seeing that the defendant could not explain, he had to accept that the industrial and commercial case was three crimes. He was on the lookout outside, and the other two robbed, without prior discussion to kill. After being arrested, I thought I owed three lives and would rather suffer for them than die, so I didn't show it. After the hint of contradiction was revealed, the defender suggested returning to the supplementary investigation in view of the possible omission of criminals in this case. Supplementary investigation results, the missing criminal was caught. The collegial panel held that the defendant had provided a major criminal clue and made a significant meritorious service, so he was sentenced to death and suspended for two years. Obviously, the defender's? Use your quick wits? Fiercely take the initiative to attack, and finally not only safeguard our country? Be lenient in confession and strict in resistance? The seriousness of the policy made the defendant get appropriate punishment, which helped the judicial organs to find out the case. It can be seen that in the process of court investigation, if defenders or prosecutors find contradictions in the case, they may as well expose them and put forward reasonable suggestions to the collegial panel on this basis, which will certainly receive satisfactory results.
3. Adjust your thinking and concentrate on the attack
How to grasp the time and content of the first, second or third debate according to the trial situation is also a question of debate skills. Generally speaking, arguments can be handled in a more principled and concise way in one round of debates, and then elaborated and developed in subsequent rounds of debates. However, there are exceptions that need to be handled flexibly. For example, in an economic dispute case, due to the complexity of the case, many witnesses appeared in court (judicial accounting appraisers and technical appraisers also appeared in court to make statements), so the court debate began. Although the plaintiff's lawyer has mastered a lot of favorable evidence, he only put forward principled opinions when publishing the agency statement. The defendant's two lawyers expected that the collegial panel would end the trial on the same day, and the second and third rounds of debate were short or even absent, so they had to adjust their original thinking and concentrate on a round of debate. Therefore, the agents of the two defendants took turns to take the stage, and fully demonstrated for a long time that the plaintiff was also responsible for the occurrence of the dispute, which left a deep impression on the collegiate bench and the observers. After the speech, the presiding judge made a little comment on the case, that is, he announced the termination of the court debate and led the trial to mediation after the two sides agreed on the film. At this point, the plaintiff's lawyer has no chance to reply, because the principle just mentioned doesn't seem to make much sense; Due to the timely adjustment of ideas, the defense lawyer took concentrated fire to attack a good card, and the case ended in a mediation agreement in favor of the defendant.
Contingency skills when unexpected arguments arise.
Both sides of the debate generally fully estimate the opinions and reasons that the other party may put forward before the trial, and make preparations for counterattack; However, in the process of argumentation, the other party often makes unpredictable arguments from generate, and some of these arguments have nothing to do with Wan Li, and some are full of fallacies. If this situation is left unchecked, it will not only lead the debate astray, but also damage the dignity of the law, so we must take contingency measures to deal with it.
1. directly refute and get back to the point.
At the beginning of the court debate, some prosecutors often divorced from the contents of the indictment and put forward new prosecution opinions, thus deviating from the theme of the debate; Some defenders often ramble and the defense is not targeted. In view of this situation, one side of the debate should immediately refute the other side, pointing out that the other side's reply is divorced from the theme of the debate, thus bringing the content of the debate back to the theme. For example, in a major smuggling case, the prosecutor mentioned the facts and legal basis of a company smuggling case in the indictment. However, the indictment accused Liu, a salesman of the company, of smuggling. In response to the public prosecutor's claim that he violated legal procedures, the defender immediately pointed out that the indictment only accused Liu of smuggling as a citizen, so there was no indictment of corporate crime in this case; Liu is not the legal representative of the company, and the indictment does not accuse him of representing the company as the defendant. Therefore, there is no defendant who committed a crime as a legal person in this case; We are not entrusted as defenders of corporate crimes, but as defenders of individual defendants, so there is no defender of corporate crimes in this case. Without the indictment, defendant and defender, why should the public prosecution accuse the company of crime? This rebuttal is interlocking, forceful and unquestionable. Then, on the question of whether the defendant committed the crime of personal smuggling, the defender pleaded not guilty, which fully reflected the defender's sophisticated adaptability.
2. Ask the basis and get into a dilemma.
In the fierce court debate, some debaters are not calm enough or underestimate the other party's ability to be familiar with the law. In desperation, they will suddenly put forward some arguments without legal basis. At this time, as long as the other party understands the flaw, they can use the method of questioning the basis to get themselves into trouble and win the debate. For example, a case of obstruction of official duties was suddenly raised by the defender? According to the relevant regulations and the requirements of evidence science, it is invalid to check the injury after more than 24 hours, while the hospital's injury appraisal was made after more than 24 hours, so the appraisal has no probative force. ? The prosecutor knows very well that there is no law. After more than 24 hours, the inspection is invalid? The defender's shot halfway out was groundless, and he immediately asked, Ask the defender to explain? After more than 24 hours, the inspection is invalid? What is the legal basis! ? The defender was well aware of his slip of the tongue and avoided the question in his defense. The prosecutor pursued the victory and pointed out in the next debate that there is no such thing as 24-hour injury examination in China law, and the hospital's injury appraisal is completely probative. ? Defenders are in a dilemma because they can't defend themselves under the strong offensive of prosecutors. Finally, the collegial panel adopted the public prosecutor's opinion.
3. Don't argue, overcome sophistry
Many criminal cases have been investigated, examined and prosecuted, and the criminal facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive and sufficient. Therefore, the defender can only make defense opinions that meet the legal requirements based on the verified facts, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant as much as possible, and can't put aside facts and laws for unnecessary sophistry. If the defender quibbles, what can the prosecutor do but refute it sternly? Debate or not? The contingency method won the debate. For example, in a robbery case, the defendant climbed over the wall and stole more than 20,000 yuan in cash. Before leaving, the victim came home and found that the victim had intercepted the defendant. The defendant picked up a chair and threw it at the victim, making a dash for the door. Caught by the crowd in the escape. His behavior changed from theft to robbery. The prosecutor sued the defendant for robbery. Defendant's defense:? The defendant pushed the chair, not smashed it. His purpose was to make noise and make the victim mistakenly think that he was fleeing from the side door, so as to lead the victim to the side door and escape from the main door. The defendant did not want to use violence in the audience, and objectively did not use violence. Therefore, his theft can not be transformed into robbery, but only constitutes theft, not robbery. ? When the defender expressed this opinion, the presiding judge was first stunned and then a little impatient. Because there is an obvious loophole in the defender's point of view, that is, if the defendant wants to lead the victim to the side door by pushing the chair, then the chair should go to the side door, and the chair generally does not fall down, but everyone who has been to the scene has mentioned that the chair fell down at the main entrance. Obviously, the defender ignored the facts of the case and made sophistry. After calmly observing the tendency of the collegiate bench, the prosecutor was convinced that the victory was in hand and there was no need to argue again, so he said concisely in the second round of debate. Our opinions have been fully expounded in the indictment and public prosecution, and we will not repeat them. Please ask the collegial panel to make a judgment. ? Due to the withdrawal of the prosecution, the defense had to stop and the court debate ended. Results The collegial panel punished the defendant for robbery. Here, the prosecutor's? Our opinions have been fully stated in the indictment and indictment, so we won't repeat them? A simple sentence not only indirectly points out that the defender's defense opinions are extremely wrong, but also avoids the unreasonable entanglement of the defender, so that the defender can no longer defend. It can be seen that in this case, it is easier to win the argument by anti-sophistry without debate.