Some young lawyers often ask: What should they do when clients suddenly "change their story"? They feel anxious and unsure how to handle such situations.

In criminal cases, it is a common occurrence for suspects and defendants to change their initial statements. Inexperienced lawyers, sometimes motivated by the desire to overturn the case, may even casually encourage their clients to recant—only to find that this approach not only fails to achieve their intended goal but also exposes them to significant professional risks. More often, however, lawyers hesitate to address the issue of a client’s recantation head-on, either out of fear of legal repercussions or concerns about how it might affect the outcome of the case—sometimes even succumbing to outright panic. In reality, as long as lawyers accurately assess the facts of the case and handle the situation with care, dealing with a client’s change in testimony can be straightforward and won’t lead to harmful legal consequences that jeopardize either the lawyer or the case itself.

First, lawyers must thoroughly understand the case and fully grasp the evidence by conducting foundational tasks such as meetings with clients, reviewing case files, and conducting investigations. Even during the investigation phase, when accessing case files may still be restricted, lawyers can still form a sound analysis of the evidence based on insights gained from client meetings and initial investigative efforts.

Then, if the client expresses an intention to change their testimony or seeks legal advice on the matter, the lawyer can help the client calmly analyze the situation, ultimately offering two possible courses of action: either discouraging a reversal of the original statement or encouraging it—depending on the circumstances. Of course, it’s crucial to note that while encouraging a reversal is permissible, lawyers must never assist clients in fabricating false statements, as this would constitute a fundamental breach of professional ethics.

So, under what circumstances should a lawyer discourage a defendant from changing their testimony, and when should they encourage it? To answer this, lawyers need to conduct thorough reviews across the following three areas.

1. Examine whether the parties were subjected to illegal evidence gathering, and whether any recantation has a reasonable explanation.

First, determine whether any illegal evidence-gathering practices occurred—specifically, whether investigators obtained confessions through torture, coercion, threats, inducements, or deception. If not, but rather the suspect voluntarily provided statements during questioning due to personal concerns or motivations—and now claims they no longer stand by those statements—under normal circumstances, it’s generally advisable for the suspect not to reconsider or "retract" their earlier testimony.

In cases where the individual has been subjected to unlawful evidence gathering, the first step is to determine whether the person can provide specific clues about the illegal practice (e.g., when, where, by whom, how the illegal evidence was obtained, and what false information was extracted). Next, it’s crucial to assess whether these clues can be thoroughly investigated or, even if credible leads and reasonable doubts are raised, whether the investigating authorities remain unable to prove the legality of the evidence-gathering process or dispel those doubts. For instance, this could involve checking for unauthorized interrogations conducted outside official investigation facilities or detention centers, verifying whether there were simultaneous audio-video recordings to confirm the proceedings, confirming whether other detainees held in the same cell can corroborate the account, examining whether any physical injuries were present, whether medical treatment was sought during custody for such injuries, or even whether family members were detained and used as a direct threat against the individual, among other relevant factors.

II. Examine whether there is evidence to corroborate the revised statements.

Simply raising reasonable explanations for a recanted confession—such as allegations of coercive interrogation—is far from sufficient. Lawyers must also carefully examine whether, even if the confession is retracted, the revised account is supported by additional corroborating evidence—both from the prosecution’s existing case file and from any new leads the lawyer can uncover based on information provided by the client. If there’s no independent evidence to back up the revised statement, or if the original confession remains strongly backed by objective proof, lawyers should advise their clients against retracting their initial admissions. After all, doing so might not only fail to change the outcome but could even lead to harsher sentencing due to perceived issues like a lack of remorse. For instance, consider the case of a grain depot director in Shanxi who initially denied knowingly substituting old grain for new stock during storage. However, dozens of his employees unanimously testified that he had personally directed them to carry out this fraudulent practice. Ultimately, the court accepted the employees’ testimonies over the director’s denial, reinforcing the principle that "many voices can shape the truth"—a cornerstone of legal evidentiary rules.

In cases of joint crime, lawyers should carefully examine whether co-defendants are sticking to their original statements. If a co-defendant remains consistent with their initial account, lawyers should generally approach any subsequent reversal by their own client with caution. Even if a co-defendant does recant, it’s crucial to assess whether the basis for that new statement is credible or well-founded. For instance, in the rape case involving Li et al., all five individuals initially denied the charges during the legal proceedings—but later, two or three of them retracted their denials and admitted to the crimes again.

Another common scenario occurs when, after a reasonable retraction of an initial statement, even if no additional evidence emerges to corroborate the revised account, the prosecution’s existing objective evidence remains too weak. In such cases, without the suspect’s original confession, it becomes impossible to establish the alleged facts beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the reasonable retraction effectively undermines the prosecution’s case, leading to insufficient evidence—and ultimately, under the principle of "in dubio pro reo," the charges cannot be proven. This situation highlights a strategic opportunity for the defendant to leverage the prosecution’s failure to meet its burden of proof, making it entirely valid to retract the initial statement.

III. Review whether the outcome of the retracted statement is favorable to the case

In less severe cases, retracting a previous statement doesn’t necessarily benefit the individual involved. In fact, after retracting, if the facts remain unclear, it could lead to prolonged detention—such as extended investigations, requests for additional evidence, or delayed court proceedings. As a result, what might have been a relatively quick resolution, like a six-month sentence, could end up dragging on for two years in custody, only to culminate in an eventual acquittal. For most people, this isn’t a favorable outcome. Of course, there are exceptions—for instance, civil servants or others who place immense value on their status and reputation, whose livelihoods could be severely impacted by such legal entanglements.

In cases involving official misconduct and other similar offenses, lawyers must carefully review the entire case file and weigh the potential pros and cons—especially since simply focusing on issues like reducing the amount of crime attributed to a defendant by reversing their initial statements may overlook broader implications. Lawyers need to consider comprehensively whether retracting part of an admission could jeopardize the recognition of self-surrender or meritorious contributions. In some instances, even if a defendant’s reversal is entirely justified, it might still undermine key aspects of their defense—potentially leading to the dismissal of certain factual claims—yet result in losing out on favorable outcomes such as self-surrender or reduced charges altogether, ultimately landing them with a harsher sentence. Moreover, lawyers must also assess whether retracting testimony could inadvertently trigger unfavorable legal consequences for family members or others involved in the same case, or even expose the defendant to additional charges—such as allegations of abuse of power or unexplained wealth, which often accompany official misconduct cases. A more strategic approach might involve lawyers leveraging the defendant’s legitimate reasons for reversing their initial statements, combined with gaps in the available evidence, to negotiate plea deals or engage constructively with the court. This could lead to outcomes like self-surrender, acknowledgment of meritorious acts, or other forms of leniency that significantly mitigate the punishment.

These three aspects are not only progressive but also mutually reinforcing—none of them can be overlooked.