First of all, we should respect the defendant
Respect for the defendant is the minimum professional ethics of criminal defense lawyers, and this respect comes from the equal personality between people. Although many defendants have done some outrageous things, such as rape, intentional homicide, robbery and other cases, and some criminal acts are cruel, we actually despise such parties in our hearts, but in any case, we still have to respect each other in personality. Equal and respectful communication can bring more trust to each other. If there is no trust between the lawyer and the defendant, it will be a lost lawsuit.
I have seen many lawyers reprimand the defendant when they meet in the detention center, and even seen lawyers quarrel with the defendant in the detention center. Many lawyers criticize and even insult the defendant in court, which is a sign that defense lawyers are not confident.
In fact, lawyers are also ordinary people, and they are easy to get angry and get angry, especially criminal defense lawyers. In this special industry, most of them have a bad temper, and of course they dare to fight against public power, so they can't do without a little temper
In my personal experience, when I feel angry, there are three situations. First, when knowing the case, I felt that the defendant didn't tell the truth and cheated the lawyer; Second, the defendant has no reason to object to your defense plan; The third is to let you do things that violate laws and professional norms, such as bringing articles and cigarettes.
Deceiving lawyers and unreasonably opposing a good defense plan will affect the overall defense effect. Be sure to explain patiently. If the other party and family are opposed, you must think of an alternative. After all, lawyers should respect the defendant's own ideas in criminal proceedings. I personally refuse to bring cigarettes and things, and most of my family members and defendants can understand.
There is no need to criticize and insult the defendant in court. The defendant's speech or behavior is really inappropriate. If the judge doesn't talk, why should the lawyer intervene?
Second, don't make moral criticism.
The public prosecutor's moral criticism of the defendant has no legal basis. I remember that in the case of Li Zhuang, the prosecutor accused Li Zhuang of whoring in court, which caused strong opposition from the practical circles, including the theoretical circles. The prosecutor in Li Zhuang later explained the credibility of the defendant's testimony, which belongs to the category of witness's character evidence in common law system. However, there is no room for discussion of character evidence in China, and there is no rule of character exclusion for verbal evidence such as testimony in China's criminal procedure law.
Of course, it is even more unnecessary for lawyers to criticize the defendant's morality, whether in the course of defense or after closing the case. In his article, Professor Zeng from Southwest repeatedly emphasized the lewdness of the defendant, how to collect money, how to be "heinous", how to be hypocritical and so on. Although the lawyer felt that the defendant did have this problem in the defense process, he could not make moral judgment on him, and the lawyer must never become the second "prosecution".
The most important objection to moral judgment is that it has nothing to do with this case. Lawyers only pay attention to whether the defendant's crime constitutes, not to the defendant's moral quality. The moral rule can only be self-discipline, not heteronomy. 3. A lawyer shall submit any evidence in favor of the defendant.
Defense lawyers should submit any evidence that is beneficial to the defendant in the lawsuit, even if the prosecution objects, which is the most basic professional ethics of lawyers.
It seems to be a kind of "common sense" in the industry that lawyers do not submit evidence in criminal proceedings. All along, all kinds of so-called trainings and barristers' statements in court advocate that lawyers should not submit evidence in criminal proceedings. We think this view is extremely wrong. Our team once handled a fraud case, and we collected and submitted more evidence than the investigation organ, and our file materials were thicker than those bound by the procuratorate. Finally, the court adopted the view of our team and the defendant went home without guilt. Of course, lawyers should protect themselves when collecting evidence. This is another story, so I won't show it here.
In fact, China's procedural law stipulates that procuratorial organs can withdraw evidence. The evidence of the procuratorate can be withdrawn in court, but as a lawyer, I don't care whether you withdraw it or not. Even if he withdraws, we will resubmit it.
Fourth, don't lick the dog.
"Licking the dog" is not respected at any time, whether it is career or love. When I first entered the business, I was deeply impressed by one sentence: male lawyers bow and female lawyers flirt. I often encounter some puzzling views: lawyers communicate rationally, lawyers are assistants of public security law, and so on, to the effect that lawyers should try their best to cooperate with them in handling cases, not procedurally, but substantively, in exchange for a good judgment.
However, in criminal proceedings, lawyers come to find fault and find fault. The rise of procedural defense in recent years is the best criticism of this argument. Lawyers enjoy independent defense rights, that is, independent from the public security law and the party who pays the lawyer's fees. Why emphasize independence from the party who pays the lawyer's fee? For example, in legal aid cases, legal aid fees are funded by the government, and lawyers cannot listen to the government's defense opinions just because the government has paid for legal aid.
Of course, we may compromise. Individual family members are afraid that lawyers will be retaliated by the case-handling organs in the process of picking holes, and privately ask lawyers not to criticize their procedures for violating the law. Last year, we handled a crime of organizing and leading pyramid schemes. Public security personnel of a county in Xuzhou, Jiangsu, logged into the suspect's account, sold "electronic coins" privately, and collected "stolen money" from selling electronic coins with private accounts. Because we insisted on excluding illegal evidence, at the pre-trial meeting, the judge handling the case said behind his family's back that it was recommended to change American lawyers. The team of lawyers in the whole case thinks that the case handlers are illegal, but the family members are afraid that they will retaliate and do not want lawyers to sue.
Lawyers should listen to the opinions of the defendant and his family whether to compromise in procedure. In Hezhou, we had a group riot case in which villagers obstructed enterprise construction because of a dispute over land use rights. At the second trial, the evidence issued by the procuratorate was suspected of forging illegal evidence, but it lasted for nearly a year in court. We consulted the family members and the defendant, and the family members did not agree to delay the exclusion of illegal evidence, so the lawyer team also chose to compromise.
It is not the lawyer's obligation to blindly emphasize the will of the case-handling organs, or even to ponder their ideas and obey them. Of course, the lawyer's objection to the case-handling personnel should be well-founded and can't be imagined and blindly followed. Therefore, everyone says that a case must have three factors to have a good defense effect. First, judges have a strong sense of responsibility; The second is the family members and defendants who insist on fighting; The third is a lawyer with a conscience.