The scope of review includes: whether jurisdiction is lawful, whether the seizure, freezing, and detention procedures are legal, whether the application of coercive measures complies with the law, what were the reasons for initially refusing to arrest the suspect, and what are the key points behind returning the case for supplementary investigation, among other issues. Particularly noteworthy is the focus on the **Indictment**, where attention should be paid to the factual basis of the charges, the supporting evidence, and whether the alleged offenses legally correspond to the charged crimes. It’s also crucial to determine whether the indictment reflects the defendant’s age at the time of criminal responsibility, their capacity for criminal accountability, whether they hold any special status, and whether they have prior convictions or have previously committed repeat offenses. Additionally, factors such as voluntary surrender, meritorious service, or other circumstances that might warrant lighter, reduced, or even exemption from criminal punishment should be carefully examined—especially in cases where prosecution may not be warranted at all. The same principles apply to the **Prosecution Opinion Report**. Moreover, if the Indictment differs significantly from the Prosecution Opinion Report, it’s essential to closely compare these changes and thoroughly analyze the underlying reasons for the discrepancies.

Based on personal insights and specific grading approaches, you can refer to the following points:

Chapter First, start with the legal documents and adopt a structured, outline-based approach.

In criminal cases, litigation documents (legal documents) include not only the "Indictment Opinion," "Indictment," "Protest Letter," "Judgment," and "Ruling," but also documents such as the "Decision on Designated Jurisdiction," "Seizure List," "Proposal for Approval of Arrest," "Supplementary Investigation Outline for Rejection of Arrest Approval," and "Outline for Returning for Supplementary Investigation," among others. Legal documents serve both as procedural filings and contain substantive content, making them potential targets for defense strategies and attacks. Therefore, careful review is essential during the document examination process. 。

The scope of review includes: whether jurisdiction is lawful, whether the seizure, freezing, and detention procedures are legal, whether the application of coercive measures complies with the law, what were the reasons for initially refusing to arrest the suspect, and what are the key points behind returning the case for supplementary investigation, among other issues. Particularly noteworthy is the focus on the **Indictment**, where attention should be paid to the factual basis of the charges, the supporting evidence, and whether the alleged offenses legally correspond to the charged crimes. It’s also crucial to determine whether the indictment reflects the defendant’s age at the time of criminal responsibility, their capacity for criminal accountability, whether they hold any special status, and whether they have prior convictions or have previously committed repeat offenses. Additionally, factors such as voluntary surrender, meritorious service, or other circumstances that might warrant lighter, reduced, or even免除刑事处罚 (exemption from criminal punishment) should be carefully examined—especially cases where prosecution may not be warranted at all. The same principles apply to the **Prosecution Opinion Report**. Moreover, if the Indictment differs significantly from the Prosecution Opinion Report, it’s essential to closely compare these changes and thoroughly analyze the underlying reasons for the discrepancies.

The facts referenced in legal documents, along with the underlying laws and regulations, often become the central points of contention in a case—and may even reveal differing perspectives among investigative authorities. Naturally, these elements also serve as the primary focus for lawyers reviewing case files. Starting the review process by examining the litigation documents allows lawyers to approach the case purposefully, quickly grasping its core issues without getting sidetracked. When reviewing the files, attorneys should concentrate on the alleged facts, evidence, and legal arguments, actively identifying areas where they can mount a strong defense. Sometimes, even if the case appears to involve overwhelming or complex evidence, this may simply reflect the thoroughness with which investigative agencies initially gathered information. In such cases, we can streamline the analysis by focusing solely on the key aspects of the final charges—avoiding unnecessary detours and ensuring that our efforts are both efficient and effective.

Second, start with the central fact and proceed from near to far.

The so-called "central fact" is the key piece of evidence that forms the backbone of a case—it sits at its core and serves as its focal point. All investigative efforts naturally revolve around this central fact. For instance, in a murder case, the act of killing itself would be the central fact. When reviewing the case files, we must carefully examine whether the defendant has confessed to the murder, whether there are eyewitnesses, and if so, what exactly those witnesses observed. We also need to determine where the crime scene was located and whether any weapons were left behind. Crucially, we must ensure that the weapon was collected properly according to legal procedures. Finally, it’s essential to conduct forensic analysis—such as testing for bloodstains and fingerprints on the weapon—to confirm its connection to the crime. Once these critical questions are clarified, we can then move on to other aspects of the case file, like whether the defendant had a motive, whether they had the opportunity to commit the crime, and even details about their attire on the day of the incident. In essence, all subsequent inquiries ultimately hinge on establishing whether or not the act of killing occurred.

Under normal circumstances, the closer the evidence is to the central facts of a case, the greater its impact—and the more closely lawyers should scrutinize it. For direct evidence such as the defendant’s statements and defenses, the victim’s account, and eyewitness testimony, attorneys should dedicate extra time to carefully reading and analyzing these materials. On the other hand, evidence involving details like the timing of the crime, the suspect’s behavior in everyday life, or hearsay testimonies from third parties typically serves as indirect evidence, lying farther from the core facts of the case. As such, less time may be required for thorough examination of this type of evidence.

Third, a categorized listing method organized by time and individuals.

Some cases involve numerous alleged criminal facts, or in joint offenses, there are obvious contradictions—whether between the statements of multiple defendants, between a single witness’s conflicting testimonies over time, or among the accounts provided by several witnesses. In such situations, it becomes essential to categorize and list the evidence systematically, organized by when and from whom it was obtained, allowing for thorough comparison. This not only helps us clearly identify discrepancies among the evidence but also enables us to present it effectively to the judge, ensuring the judge can effortlessly grasp the key details of the case.

For instance, in a major railway theft case involving a "guerrilla-style" operation, the charges alleged that Xu Moumou participated in as many as 50 separate theft incidents. After carefully reviewing the case files, we noticed that, given the nature of the crimes—committed on railway tracks—and the defendants’ limited ability to recall the exact locations and times of each incident, the evidence varied significantly: some victims provided proof of their losses, while others did not; similarly, some cases included appraisals of the stolen goods, while others lacked such documentation. Importantly, the victims’ loss statements and the appraisal reports directly determine whether the facts of the case are clearly established and whether the evidence is solid and sufficient. Moreover, the monetary value involved often influences sentencing decisions. Therefore, we used this as our starting point, systematically listing details for each incident—such as the specific time of the crime, whether a loss statement was available, whether an appraisal existed, whether the defendant confessed, and whether the stolen items were recovered. This approach made the information instantly clear at a glance, ultimately leading to the dismissal of most of the charges. In similar illegal fundraising cases, where numerous investors are involved and the amounts invested—as well as the returns of principal and interest—are staggering and highly complex, even investigators and prosecutors may struggle to keep track accurately. As a result, lawyers must meticulously examine the case files, compiling detailed comparison tables for each transaction, clearly indicating the source of supporting evidence. This meticulous analysis helps the court piece together the truth of what happened.

Fourth, make every effort to grasp the key points using the selective indexing method.

A good memory is no match for a reliable pen. When reviewing evidence—whether favorable or unfavorable to the case—make sure not to shy away from the effort. Strive to faithfully transcribe the original text or concisely summarize the key points. Organize your notes either chronologically according to the case file sequence or by category, and be sure to create a detailed index for easy reference. This preparation will ensure smooth proceedings, both inside and outside the courtroom, helping you efficiently craft arguments, respond effectively to the prosecution, and ultimately avoid delays or disadvantages caused by last-minute scrambling through documents during critical moments. Based on a comprehensive review of the case files, key facts relevant to conviction and sentencing should also be carefully extracted and categorized. For example, in organized crime cases—due to the large number of individuals involved and the extensive criminal facts—it is often helpful to first organize the "Prosecution Opinion" and "Indictment" into tabular formats, facilitating detailed review and analysis of case files afterward. The organizational characteristics of triad-like criminal organizations are particularly crucial, as they allow for a comprehensive summary—organized by the rank, identity, date of joining, date of leaving, and alleged criminal activities—of each suspect and defendant, enabling a clear and straightforward analysis. Similarly, for economic characteristics, the assets involved in the case can also be categorized and summarized to focus on determining whether they qualify as property subject to confiscation or forfeiture. Apply the principle of drawing inferences—whether handling any case, one should focus on the key points and strike a balance between thoroughness and efficiency when reviewing documents.    

Of course, grading papers is also "physical work"—and aside from the methods mentioned above, there’s no one-size-fits-all shortcut. In short, it requires repeated, thorough reviews, especially focusing on key areas to systematically tackle and analyze them. Only then can you sift through the intricate web of evidence to identify facts and arguments, laying a solid foundation for further cross-examination and defense.