Preliminarily determine the impact of the evidence on the litigation based on the other party’s evidence and the actual circumstances of the litigation.
If the evidence fundamentally affects the direction of the litigation, it is recommended to apply for a time limit for cross-examination and avoid expressing opinions during the trial. It is best to adjourn the trial if possible. If the trial cannot be adjourned, the other party should insist on cross-examination after the trial. The court will not allow cross-examination. Even if the trial judge forces a response, post-trial cross-examination should be insisted upon. (Generally, the judge will quickly agree to the suggestion of post-trial cross-examination)
If it does not have a significant impact on the litigation evidence, or it is a supplement or correction to the original evidence, you can then express your opinion to the court. This approach is conducive to the smooth progress of the trial and is also a form of respect for the court.
It is not recommended to determine the authenticity of the evidence in court. It needs to be emphasized that due to the evidence submitted by the other party, we are unable to verify its authenticity. We can submit it to the court in the form of a written statement. To determine the legality, the other party may be required to explain the source of evidence. The purpose of requiring the other party to explain the source of evidence is not only to cross-examine the legality (legal form, legal source) itself, but also to examine whether the other party has maliciously raided the evidence. Those who maliciously search for evidence can be admonished or punished in accordance with the law. Only a preliminary review will be conducted on the relevance of the evidence. If it is not relevant to the disputed facts, a non-relevant cross-examination opinion should be made. If there is no issue of relevance, it should be recommended that the court conduct post-trial written cross-examination. If the other party is a capable lawyer and the other party does submit evidence late, it cannot be ruled out that it may be because: the evidence poses certain risks to the other party.
A piece of evidence may point to multiple facts to be proven in litigation, and the evidence may have completely different legal effects for different facts to be proven. This may cause lawyers to hesitate between doing one thing and another. Therefore, it is necessary for us to carefully examine the evidence of the raid to see if we can find any part that is beneficial to us, and to propose cross-examination opinions accordingly. It is a good cross-examination habit to dig out the parts of the other party's evidence that are beneficial to one's side.
Legal basis:
Article 172 of the "Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the State" stipulates that the People's Procuratorate shall handle cases transferred for prosecution by the supervisory authorities and public security organs. Cases should be decided within one month, and for major and complex cases, an extension of fifteen days can be extended; if a criminal suspect pleads guilty and accepts punishment, and meets the application conditions for expedited adjudication procedures, a decision should be made within ten days, and may be sentenced to more than one year in prison. In cases of imprisonment, the sentence may be extended to fifteen days.
If the People’s Procuratorate changes jurisdiction over a case for review and prosecution, the time limit for review and prosecution shall be calculated from the date the People’s Procuratorate accepts the case after the change of jurisdiction.