Currently, the primary issues lawyers face during court proceedings revolve around the inadequate protection of their right to defense—specifically, procedural rights such as the rejection of various motions and the failure to admit defense evidence—as well as substantive rights like the disregard of cross-examination and defense arguments. How lawyers can take control, gain a stronger platform to fully articulate their positions in court, ensure that all parties involved genuinely listen and pay attention, and ultimately persuade the court to value and adopt their defense arguments has become the critical challenge we need to address.

I’ll share my perspective using four keywords and three processes.

The first key word is "strong professional expertise." This encompasses a solid grasp of the case’s fundamental facts and intricate details, as well as a proficient command of both substantive and procedural law. Only then can you become someone who can engage in seamless dialogue with prosecutors and the presiding judge—someone whose knowledge and professional capabilities truly match theirs. Otherwise, if you’re unable to answer even the most straightforward questions—whether they pertain to the specifics of the case or the application of the law—you’ll find yourself at a distinct disadvantage. After all, if you’re unfamiliar with the case details or lack a deep understanding of the relevant legal principles, yet still try to dominate the courtroom by speaking excessively, rambling off-topic, and missing the core issues, you risk being dismissed by your opponents. As a result, your "rights" will naturally fail to earn the respect they deserve. That’s why having strong professional expertise is absolutely essential—it serves as the foundational prerequisite for success.

The second key phrase is "communication comes first." The courtroom serves as a formal arena where all parties—lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and even victims—come together to present their arguments and compete. Yet, even before stepping into the courtroom, a lawyer’s experience and attitude can already shape the tone and atmosphere of the subsequent trial. Both prosecutors and judges are naturally cautious about making mistakes, as no one wants to be held accountable for wrongful convictions. Recognizing this shared concern, many lawyers strategically leverage it to their advantage. When faced with complex cases, disputes that carry significant controversy, or even situations where they know the case is flawed but are pressured by powerful authorities to proceed, attorneys often find themselves in an emotionally unstable position. In such scenarios, whether through complaints, formal accusations, or leaks to the media, lawyers can effectively push for accountability—urging these officials to take responsibility for their errors and encouraging them to admit and rectify their mistakes. However, before resorting to these more confrontational tactics, I still recommend proactively engaging in open dialogue with prosecutors and judges. Share your perspectives, present your evidence, and outline your proposed course of action—engaging in a candid exchange of ideas to collaboratively identify a path forward that satisfies all parties involved. Even if initial communication yields limited results—or remains inconclusive for now—it can still have a positive impact on the trial itself. By fostering a calm and rational environment, it allows everyone to thoughtfully evaluate the lawyer’s requests without unnecessary tension. Let’s avoid treating new insights or compelling evidence as "trump cards," secretly withholding them until the last minute to spring a surprise attack. Such surprises are universally disliked—not only by prosecutors and judges, but also by the court system as a whole. They disrupt the natural flow of proceedings, wasting valuable time—and often prove ineffective in practice. Prosecutors, caught off guard, may simply request a brief recess or even ask for an extension to carefully reconsider their stance. Meanwhile, the defense risks escalating the situation into a heated emotional conflict, turning professional debate into personal animosity. Ultimately, this not only strains relationships between the parties but also undermines the judge’s ability to remain impartial, making it far less likely that the defense’s arguments will be seriously considered and incorporated into the final decision.

The third key word is to bravely stand your ground. Most lawyers practice locally and often harbor concerns—feeling hesitant to fully engage, fearing that confronting their counterparts in court might leave them vulnerable. They worry that after the proceedings, they could be labeled as ineffective by local prosecutors, investigators, or judges, either in terms of handling local relationships or impacting their career growth and reputation. Some even believe that moving to another city to argue cases will make things easier. However, there’s actually a dialectical truth to this: relying on compromise or giving in to others—not through your professional ability to assert yourself—will never earn you respect. On the contrary, such an approach may actually increase the likelihood of your rights being violated during trials, and your opinions becoming less likely to be taken seriously. On the other hand, if you dare to stay true to your principles and confidently defend your position over time, you’ll gradually build a strong, respected reputation right where you are. For insights into this very topic, including personal experiences and advice, I’ve already discussed it in Chapter 15, titled "Should Lawyers Confront Prosecutors, Investigators, and Judges?"

The fourth key principle is moderate balance. Guided by the approach of focusing on what truly matters while letting go of minor issues, we must remain firm on critical matters that determine conviction and sentencing, yet exercise restraint when dealing with less significant concerns—avoiding petty tricks or clever maneuvers. At the same time, it’s important not to dwell endlessly on others’ small flaws or imperfections. Instead, address issues briefly but effectively, knowing when to stop and step back gracefully, ensuring everyone retains a way out of the situation. This approach serves as both a reminder and a warning, encouraging fairness and accountability. During court proceedings, whether it’s the prosecutor or the presiding judge making procedural errors, misquoting the law, overlooking crucial evidence, or neglecting the defendant’s rights—these instances should be promptly identified and corrected. When necessary, don’t shy away from standing your ground; however, once the issue has been resolved and the desired corrective outcome achieved, it’s essential to know when to pause and resume showing respect toward all parties involved in the courtroom. Mastering this delicate balance is something young lawyers must continually explore and refine throughout their professional practice.

The three processes I’d like to share are pre-trial preparation, courtroom defense, and post-trial follow-up.

First, let’s talk about the preparations made before court. For instance, if you’re involved in a case starting from the first-instance stage but didn’t participate during the prosecution review phase, it’s crucial to be proactive in communication. Whether you’re advocating for innocence or arguing for a lighter sentence, you should reach out to the prosecutor—perhaps by phone or even arranging a face-to-face meeting. Don’t assume that meticulously preparing your courtroom defense will suffice on its own. Many critical issues require effective pre-trial dialogue with the prosecutor, aiming to build as much mutual understanding as possible and minimize unnecessary confrontation. This approach is especially important. Similarly, when interacting with the judge, tailor your communication strategy based on their likely perspective—determine whether they’re entirely objective and impartial, or if they may already have preconceived biases toward the case. Once you’ve assessed their mindset, craft a targeted approach to engage them effectively before the trial begins. If you can persuade them, do so; but even if persuasion isn’t possible, make sure to highlight during the trial the specific points where their reasoning remains unclear or most resistant to your arguments.

This is pre-trial communication—everyone should cultivate a proactive mindset. By thoroughly preparing beforehand, you can highlight many critical issues in court, making the trial more efficient and enabling the courtroom to focus its time and energy on probing the very core of the key points you believe are most essential.

The most critical step in pre-trial preparation is the pre-trial conference. As long as you request one, the panel of judges will usually agree—after all, the goal is to ensure that the courtroom proceedings run smoothly.

The pre-trial conference is a strategic game where all parties lay their cards on the table and negotiate terms. Since it’s an in-camera, closed-door meeting, participants often feel free to speak openly—something that wouldn’t be possible during a public courtroom trial. At these sessions, the focus typically shifts toward exchanging evidence, challenging the admissibility of certain evidence, and addressing procedural issues. However, occasionally judges may also facilitate an exchange of arguments between the prosecution and defense, subtly gauging each side’s positions in the process. This can inadvertently cross the line into substantive deliberation, moving beyond mere procedural matters. Still, we need to remain flexible and adaptable—sometimes it’s best not to outright reject such opportunities. After all, there are topics that simply can’t or shouldn’t be discussed openly during a formal, public trial. That’s precisely why the pre-trial conference becomes a crucial platform for candid dialogue. Particularly in high-stakes, sensitive cases—or those marked by significant disputes between the prosecution and defense—these meetings offer a unique chance for both sides to probe each other’s strategies and mental frameworks. If handled skillfully, the conference might even lead to informal agreements between the defense and prosecution, or even with the court itself. For instance, this could involve persuading the judge to exclude certain illegally obtained evidence or revising the alleged crime’s financial scale downward.

But always remember, this is just a closed-door meeting—not an actual courtroom trial. Even if it closely resembles a trial, it’s still not the real thing, so be mindful of the key differences in rights. For instance, if your request to call a witness was put on hold, or your motion to exclude evidence was rejected by the judge, does that mean you can’t raise these issues again when the formal trial begins? Absolutely not—you should still bring them up as usual. The pre-trial conference is simply a chance for everyone to communicate; it’s not a ruling. Don’t assume that signing the pre-trial conference record automatically gives it legal force. After all, under criminal procedure law, you’re entitled to every single one of your trial rights—none can be overlooked.

A pre-trial conference can also be requested and held multiple times. Sometimes, after one session concludes, the issues aren’t fully resolved—for instance, a request to access the synchronized audio and video recordings from the investigation phase may only yield partial results, leaving crucial portions still unavailable. Or perhaps non-relevant evidence was flagged during the pre-trial meeting, requiring the prosecutor to verify it further. In such cases, it becomes necessary to apply again for a second pre-trial conference—to address and resolve the remaining issues that should have been tackled beforehand.

Some cases arrive at the court only about ten days ago, yet they’re already being instructed from higher up to proceed with swift hearings and verdicts. But what do you do when your preparations aren’t fully ready—when critical evidence hasn’t even been gathered yet—yet the court has already scheduled the trial? In such situations, your best approach is to try your hardest to negotiate a postponement of the hearing. If negotiations fail, you’ll need to adapt on the spot during the actual courtroom proceedings, strategically slowing down the trial process as much as possible. For instance, pay close attention during the trial to whether the defendant’s health condition makes it appropriate—or even safe—to continue. You might also raise concerns about whether the presiding judge should recuse themselves, or if any essential legal procedures have been overlooked. A few years ago in Taiyuan, I found myself in exactly this predicament, struggling to find a way to delay the trial. Just before the hearing began, the judge unexpectedly called both our lawyers and the defendant into a small room adjacent to the courtroom. There, the judge bluntly stated that the defendant *had* to plead guilty—if he did, he’d likely receive a lighter sentence. Yet, crucially, the judge didn’t specify *how* light that sentence would be. On the flip side, if the defendant refused to admit guilt, the judge warned ominously that the punishment would be significantly harsher. I immediately took note of this blatant bias and promptly filed a motion for the judge’s recusal, arguing that since the trial hadn’t even started yet, how could the judge already be pressuring us to accept a guilty plea? Clearly, the judge was openly favoring one side, making it impossible to ensure a fair and impartial trial. As a result, the original trial never went ahead. It wasn’t until much later that a new judge finally took over and presided over the case.