Case Record‖ If the lawyer announces the case without a hearing, it is estimated that he will enter the detention center
Recently, in the process of handling cases, a relatively common and illegal thing was encountered, and after the pre-trial conference, the procuratorate disclosed the case information through the Internet.
The thing is this, a case undertaken by our team, the case has not yet been heard, but a pre-trial conference, the pre-trial conference may not understand what it means, then today Lawyer Zhang will tell you about it.
The pretrial conference deals with ten issues, each of which can lead to the interruption of the hearing. Specifically, it includes the following:
(1) Whether there are objections to the jurisdiction of the case;
(2) Whether to apply for the recusal of relevant personnel;
(3) Whether to apply for a closed hearing;
(4) Whether the application was made to exclude illegal evidence;
(5) Whether to apply for the provision of new evidentiary materials;
(6) Whether to apply for a re-appraisal or inquest;
(7) Whether they have applied to collect evidentiary materials collected by the public security organs or people's procuratorates during the investigation or review for prosecution but not transferred with the case to prove the defendant's innocence or guilt;
(8) Whether they have applied to collect or collect evidentiary materials from witnesses or relevant units or individuals;
(9) Whether they have applied for witnesses, evaluators, investigators, or persons with specialized knowledge to appear in court, and whether they have objections to the list of persons appearing in court;
(10) Other issues related to the trial.
From the above ten "catalogs", it can be seen that the pretrial conference only solves the procedural problems of the case, not the public trial of the substantive materials of the case, that is to say, the entire material involved in the case, whether it is the prosecutor, the lawyer, or the court at this time can not be disclosed, some time ago there were also relevant provisions introduced, lawyers can not use public opinion to put pressure on the case-handling unit.
In previous cases, lawyers were convicted and punished for revealing state secrets for publishing part of the case's information.
From the existing materials, we can see that most of the lawyers who only regulate lawyers are punished.
So does this mean that the procuratorate can disclose the case information at will? Spark public opinion? This is clearly not possible.
According to the law and relevant regulations, the status of the prosecutor and the lawyer is the same (in practice, the positive image of the prosecutor is mostly reported, but the lawyer is very small, which leads to a certain misunderstanding of the public about the lawyer, this kind of public opinion orientation, I think is problematic). At the time of the trial, the positions of lawyers and prosecutors were one left and one right, and did not show that the prosecutor was on top.
Going back to the question we'll discuss at the beginning, the pretrial conference is only a procedural discussion (the defendant can apply to participate), so if the case has not been heard, then the procuratorate cannot disclose the case information.
I want to state that here I am only objectively presenting the facts of the case, there is no malicious slander or the like, our lawyers also have times of non-compliance, no one is perfect, the progress of the law, the progress of the rule of law personnel, is the need for continuous encouragement.
However, in this case we handled, after the pre-trial conference in the morning, a procuratorate disclosed the case information through the official account in the afternoon, including the amount of money involved, the number of people and the specific case process.
I almost posted the sentencing recommendation directly (I joked that I would not get a verdict directly), so does this mean that there is no need for a trial? The role of the lawyer is gone? The biggest problem with the case, however, was the defense of the lawyers: "According to the available material, it does not constitute a charge, but may constitute other crimes..."
This practice of the procuratorate is obviously intended to cause pressure from public opinion, and it is anxious to publicize the first case, and it is not excluded that it wants to "put pressure on the judge." At the same time, it ignores the majesty of judicial trials.
And this action of the procuratorate to disclose case information, if it is announced by the lawyer, I guess that after the pre-trial meeting in the morning and the public in the afternoon, it is estimated that it will be in the evening to eat idle meals.
According to Article 2 of the Law on Guarding State Secrets, "State secrets are matters related to national security and interests, determined in accordance with legal procedures, and known only to a certain range of personnel within a certain period of time." Article 9 stipulates: "The following matters involving national security and interests, which, after disclosure, may harm the security and interests of the state in the political, economic, national defense, diplomatic and other fields, shall be determined as state secrets: (6) Activities to safeguard national security and trace secret matters in criminal crimes." Therefore, the case file materials related to criminal investigation in criminal cases may be recognized as state secrets within a certain period of time and only a certain range of personnel are aware of.
In fact, no one can make public the cases in which criminal cases have not been heard, but the situation that Lawyer Zhang said is too much in judicial practice, but everyone does not mention it.
I think that if our lawyers are unable or dare not defend the legitimate rights and interests of our clients through normal means, then this will be the sadness of the times.
Lawyers cannot disclose cases, and likewise, procuratorates are not allowed to disclose cases, and in this case, lawyers and relevant personnel can also respond to the relevant departments in order to maintain a good judicial system.
Writing in the final digression, legal practitioners think that mutual respect, does not mean that my lawyer needs to obey the procuratorate's accusations, nor does it mean that the questions raised by lawyers must be adopted (after all, some problems, we know are very ridiculous), we are only based on the existing evidentiary materials, according to the current effective law to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. The procuratorate, on the other hand, only stands in the position of the prosecutor and charges according to the facts and the law.
However, in some cases, our legal professionals themselves have disputes over the characterization or the principal accessory, the court needs to convene a joint meeting to discuss, why does the law force a party who does not understand the law to forcibly admit guilt and accept punishment?
In such cases, the parties do not know whether he constitutes a crime, we cannot say that the parties must admit guilt and accept punishment, and it is simply absurd to admit guilt and accept punishment under the premise of great controversy, and if they do not admit guilt and accept punishment, they will be given heavier punishment, which is obviously a "threat" and does not conform to the original intention of the establishment of the plea and accept punishment.
I'm not trying to express that I'm a "lever," and many of my criminal cases have pleaded guilty, but this is the most powerful defense strategy based on factual evidence and the premise that the law is not controversial.
Ps: Some people may say that Lawyer Zhang said so much, why don't you directly paste the picture? What Lawyer Zhang wants to say is that although the above public information can be retrieved in the media, Lawyer Zhang is still more instigated, dare not name which unit, and do not dare to take a screenshot, after all, I took a screenshot, maybe this small short article will not survive, I am facing another problem.
Lawyer Zhang does not want to put pressure on the case-handling unit through self-media, does not want to hype the case, Lawyer Zhang just wants to handle the case legally according to laws and regulations, but Lawyer Zhang will respond to the relevant parts through legal and reasonable channels to protect the rights and interests of my client.
Mr. Zhang Chun wrote on October 22, 2020