Now, let's talk about the courtroom proceedings. Court hearings are often the most confusing setting for everyone involved. During proceedings, obstacles can arise from various sources—whether it’s the presiding judge failing to show proper respect toward the lawyer, or at least not formally ensuring the lawyer’s right to a robust defense; or perhaps from the victim, including the litigation representative of the victimized entity or the victim themselves. Alternatively, these challenges may come from co-defendants in the same case and their defense attorneys, or even from shifts in the position of one’s own client.

How to maintain control during a courtroom trial starts with addressing the role of the presiding judge. The presiding judge is the one who directs the proceedings and should remain impartial and objective. Therefore, your first step should be to treat the judge as an ally—positioning yourself as the judge’s trusted assistant. This involves meticulously organizing the evidence: categorizing it by type, identifying any tricky or complex aspects, and summarizing everything in the clearest, most concise manner possible for the judge to easily understand. Additionally, make sure to provide the judge with even the most intricate legal statutes, landmark precedents, and relevant case references, enabling them to focus precisely on the key issues at hand during the trial. Ultimately, playing the role of the judge’s assistant is also about effectively communicating your own perspective throughout the process.

However, it’s a very common issue for the presiding judge to occasionally interrupt lawyers during their arguments. So, how can we avoid or effectively handle such situations? The answer lies both in understanding the judge’s behavior and in reflecting on our own approach. First, we must thoroughly prepare before court—specifically, by crafting a well-structured list of questions tailored to the case. These questions should be essential, highly focused, and adaptable based on how the prosecutor conducts their cross-examination in real time. Aim to ask direct, probing questions that address gaps or clarify critical points—while avoiding redundancy. It’s also smart to inform the judge in advance about the number of questions you plan to ask or roughly how much time you’ll need. This keeps everyone informed and helps maintain a sense of anticipation rather than frustration. Of course, there may be times when your question inadvertently leads into a trap designed to elicit unfavorable statements from co-defendants or witnesses who might incriminate your client. In such cases, don’t let the interruption throw you off balance. Instead, calmly explain why the question remains relevant to the case—perhaps emphasizing its importance to issues like guilt or sentencing. If the tension in the courtroom becomes too high and risks escalating into conflict, it’s sometimes better to pause temporarily. You can always revisit the topic later, perhaps during cross-examination of supporting evidence, and reiterate how the newly uncovered facts directly tie back to your earlier inquiry. At that point, the judge will likely allow you to resume your line of questioning. Ultimately, the key is to remain persistent yet flexible, seizing every opportunity to make your point without losing sight of the bigger picture. With patience and adaptability, you’ll find a way to keep the dialogue moving forward—even in the face of unexpected interruptions.

The process of presenting evidence and cross-examining can also allow the lawyer to take a leading role. You might view certain issues as insignificant, yet the prosecutor insists on reading them aloud—often in great detail—believing that these seemingly minor details actually enhance the emotional impact of the charges. On the other hand, when it comes to questions you deem critical, the prosecutor may simply breeze through them, perhaps reading two or three at once. As a result, the defendant struggles to hear clearly or even remember the key points amid the overwhelming volume of information. So how do you handle this? You need to promptly raise the issue: "Based on our pre-trial conference discussions, let’s clarify which topics are truly central to the case—issues that require each piece of evidence to be examined individually." In essence, this approach helps guide how evidence is presented. Of course, there are times when diplomacy is called for. For instance, you could say: "In this case, we have numerous contracts serving as documentary evidence. We’ve already agreed on their relevance, so they can be presented collectively. However, when it comes to witness testimony—especially regarding specific incidents—we believe it’s essential to examine each statement individually. This not only ensures clarity but also helps streamline the trial process." Ultimately, while adhering strictly to evidentiary rules, it’s crucial to strike a balance: demonstrating both your commitment to fairness and your willingness to work collaboratively with the judge.

If the presiding judge feels you’ve made too many objections, they’ll usually ask you to briefly address whether the evidence is legal and authentic—leaving more detailed opinions for the debate phase. But don’t take that at face value; by the time it’s your turn to debate, the judge might suddenly shift gears again, saying, "Just state your main points briefly—save the specifics for a written submission, which we’ll review carefully." That’s why you can’t postpone this right until later—it’s crucial to raise all three key issues upfront: legality, authenticity, and relevance. Even if most of the evidence doesn’t actually have problems with legality or authenticity, the real sticking point often lies in its relevance. If you fail to address relevance during your objection, you inadvertently reduce the "three pillars" to just "two," effectively undermining the admissibility of the evidence. So, when presenting your objections, make sure to cover all three aspects comprehensively—but when articulating your arguments, start by explicitly mentioning "legality, authenticity, and relevance." Then, subtly frame your remaining points under the umbrella of "relevance," which will help prevent the judge from interrupting you mid-sentence.

Another common issue arises when, after the lawyer presents their rebuttal arguments, the presiding judge asks the prosecutor if they have a response. Once the prosecutor replies, the judge immediately instructs them to proceed with presenting further evidence. But this isn’t fair—essentially, the prosecutor ends up making two rounds of comments, while the lawyer is left with only one opportunity to respond. We should boldly raise this point, as the judge would find it difficult to refuse at this stage. Moreover, when responding, it’s not enough simply to state your own viewpoint; you can—and should—also challenge and debate the prosecutor’s arguments, including their stated purpose for presenting evidence and their line of reasoning. This is known as cross-examination and debate, and it’s fully supported by law.

However, when the situation calls for it—and especially when court proceedings require our assistance to maintain order—we should set aside our confrontational stance. For instance, if a defendant, particularly in high-profile or sensitive cases, tends to speak in a way that’s overly detailed, repetitive, or emotionally unstable, and despite the judge’s attempts to guide and intervene effectively, the courtroom remains stuck in an impasse that clearly undermines the quality of the defense, we as lawyers can step in proactively. We might even ask the presiding judge for permission to briefly suspend the hearing—for just two minutes—so we can privately discuss the matter with our client. This could help calm the defendant down, encourage them to stay focused and concise, and prioritize sharing only the most critical points. By doing so, we ensure the trial continues smoothly, benefiting everyone involved while also giving the defendant a fair chance to express their views. In this way, the court will likely see us not as adversaries, but as reasonable, understanding, and strategically-minded partners committed to upholding judicial order. After all, when we advocate for our clients’ rights in court, it must always be grounded in fairness, logic, and respect—never simply out of sheer opposition for the sake of confrontation.

During the debate, you can pre-announce the approximate timing to keep everyone informed. When it’s time to take the upper hand, don’t hesitate—but don’t assume that silencing the prosecutor completely will automatically yield the best outcome. Instead, focus on addressing the key points while letting go of minor details, knowing when to stop without holding a grudge. Even in the courtroom, maintaining clear and constructive communication—and engaging effectively—remains crucial, even as the debate unfolds.

Let's also discuss how we handle the various parties involved in the litigation.

First and foremost, there’s the prosecutor. Whether during the pre-trial preparation phase or in court, we should strive to cultivate a mutual respect and understanding with the prosecutor. When identifying minor flaws in the prosecution’s case, we should address them tactfully—avoiding unnecessary escalation. For points of contention that reflect a matter of principle rather than substance, we should clearly explain our position without resorting to sarcasm, mockery, or personal attacks. However, if the issues involve serious procedural errors that significantly impact the case, we must make appropriate use of them to our advantage.

For instance, a few years ago I was handling the case of a certain mayor. During the pre-trial conference, I noticed an obvious mistake in the indictment. After pointing it out, the prosecutor quietly redrafted the indictment and submitted it to the court—though neither a correction nor an addition was made; the document number remained unchanged. As a result, I refused the court’s request to replace the original indictment with the revised version. The prosecutor, visibly uneasy, immediately approached me, asking nervously, “What should we do now?” I calmly replied, “This is such a minor issue—something anyone could easily overlook. Rest assured, it’s not a substantive error. In fact, I won’t mention it at all during the trial.” To my surprise, the prosecutor was deeply moved by my understanding and composure. When the actual courtroom proceedings began, the prosecutor assigned to respond to my arguments barely reacted at all. Frustrated by this lack of engagement, the lead prosecutor finally stepped in, trying hastily to defend their position—but unfortunately, their responses were riddled with mistakes. Ultimately, there are many ways to build rapport—or even mutual understanding—with prosecutors, and you don’t always have to resort to direct confrontation to achieve that.

If we encounter prosecutors who don’t play by the rules or fail to level rational accusations, we must remain fully prepared and vigilant. I’ve personally witnessed cases where prosecutors, during multiple interrogations, didn’t strictly adhere to facts and the law—they instead actively worked on behalf of the investigative authorities, using false promises to pressure clients into confessing, ultimately leading to wrongful prosecutions being filed with the court. During the trial, when the prosecutor tried to justify the charges by citing the client’s “plea during the review-and-prosecution phase,” I immediately pointed out the procedural violation. To my surprise, the prosecutor instantly fell silent, realizing he’d been caught red-handed—after all, interrogations in official corruption cases are always recorded. After that, he gradually returned to a more rational approach, sticking to legal principles, presenting facts, and backing up his arguments with solid evidence. At that point, I chose not to revisit the earlier issue, letting it fade into the past. Yet, this very exchange underscored the lawyer’s unwavering commitment to standing firm on principle—a moment rich in symbolic significance. In essence, confrontation should only be pursued when absolutely necessary, and its purpose must directly benefit the case. If there’s no tangible advantage, engaging in petty nitpicking or overly critical behavior not only fails to demonstrate professional competence but can even backfire, making you appear less credible and inviting dismissal from your opponent. Whether inside or outside the courtroom, our ultimate goal isn’t just to persuade others through logic, prioritizing key issues while letting go of minor ones—but also to win over the prosecutor and the panel through genuine openness, empathy, and a broad-minded approach.

For lawyers handling the same case, thorough pre-trial communication is essential—only then can they effectively coordinate in court, ensuring their arguments complement each other and highlight the key points. Back in 2005, I represented Chen Yifeng in the Guanfenghua Group’s alleged organized-crime case in Shenzhen. During the trial, several co-counsel worked seamlessly together, employing a strategic mix of firm yet flexible tactics: when one lawyer was interrupted, another immediately stepped in, leveraging the collective strength of the team to take control of the courtroom. By the time the court adjourned, the presiding judge openly praised our legal team—publicly acknowledging to both the prosecutors and the media reporters—that we had outperformed the prosecution itself. This incident clearly demonstrated that when lawyers present well-reasoned, evidence-based defenses while working cohesively as a united team—even in high-stakes, high-profile organized-crime cases with potentially adversarial undertones—they rarely face opposition from the bench. On the contrary, the panel often welcomes and appreciates this kind of professional, spirited debate. After that landmark case, I’ve always remembered the importance of building a strong, collaborative defense team—one that stands united, supports each other, and bravely faces the challenges head-on. My former colleague, Attorney Xu Ping, once handled an intricate fraud case involving over 80 defense lawyers. During the courtroom debate phase, after obtaining unanimous consent from all his co-counsel, he delivered the second round of defense arguments on behalf of the entire team. While this approach sparked some controversy at the time, I believe it was ultimately a smart and effective way for everyone to synchronize their efforts and maintain a steady rhythm throughout the proceedings.

There are also more common situations where lawyers attack each other to try to lessen their own clients' culpability—something I strongly disagree with. After all, there are plenty of clever and tactful ways to clarify your position, such as simply stating that your client had no involvement in the alleged actions. There’s no need to resort to attacking other clients by claiming, for instance, that "it was Defendant X who did it." Doing so would only escalate tensions and conflicts among clients, leading to infighting in court—precisely the kind of scenario that undermines efforts to uncover the truth and ultimately harms your own client’s best interests.

For victims, in some cases the individual victim appears in court personally or has hired a lawyer to represent them, while in others, the victimized organization is represented by a litigation representative. In my view, whether before the trial begins or throughout the entire courtroom proceedings, we as defense attorneys must express genuine sympathy and apology—after all, even though the defendant is accused of actions committed by themselves, not by their lawyers, it remains our duty to convey the apology on their behalf. Often, employing this approach can help minimize the emotional impact on the victim when presenting arguments, preventing them from reacting with strong resentment or escalating their emotions further.

At the same time, we should also note that during court proceedings, there’s often insufficient coordination between the victim and the prosecutor. Though they’re technically seated at the same table—supposedly sharing a unified stance and perspective—the reality is quite different in most cases. For instance, when it comes to characterizing the crime, the victim might insist it’s intentional homicide, while the prosecutor argues it’s intentional injury. As a result, the victim may feel deeply dissatisfied with the prosecution’s charge of intentional injury. Similarly, disagreements frequently arise regarding the alleged amount of the offense and the recommended sentencing—issues that are clearly evident in their arguments. As lawyers, we must pay close attention to these dynamics and strategically leverage them to our advantage. If we can effectively highlight the key points of contention—using the victim’s perspective to challenge the prosecutor, and vice versa—this could put both parties on the defensive, giving us a significant edge in shaping the outcome. As for other litigation participants like expert witnesses and lay witnesses, many of the same tactics apply, so I won’t go into further detail here.

Finally, there’s the follow-up work after the court hearing. Do we mean that once the trial is over and we’ve managed to gain the upper hand, all our work is done? Not at all. In many cases, it’s still necessary to arrange for a second hearing—especially when there are unresolved issues left unaddressed, such as key facts that remain unclear, crucial witnesses who haven’t yet appeared in court, or critical evidence like audio or video recordings that have been edited or truncated. These matters often require lawyers to keep pushing forward after the initial trial, continuously seeking additional grounds to file relevant motions, proactively gathering further evidence, and persistently communicating with the relevant authorities. Our goal is to push for a second or even third trial—because each new hearing could uncover fresh facts or evidence that significantly influence the verdict and sentencing, potentially turning the entire case around. After all, securing another trial means opening the door to new opportunities to address lingering, critical issues and move the case toward a more favorable outcome.