This article totals 2864 Word, suggested reading time 7 Minutes

  There are many methods and techniques for cross-examination, but this article focuses specifically on how to prioritize key issues while letting go of less critical ones in criminal cases. In my view, prioritizing effectively involves two key aspects: highlighting the most important points and reinforcing them even further.

First, highlighting the key points refers to presenting objections or challenges to important evidence.

We can highlight the key points during court proceedings by using the following two techniques.

( 1) Discard irrelevant objections, but keep your points—even if you have them—otherwise, it will dilute the main focus. Example: Case involving alleged fraud by Fu Moumou

The indictment accuses the defendant of hastily constructing a house after learning about an impending demolition, hoping to secure substantial compensation payments in the future. To substantiate this claim, the prosecutor presented extensive evidence, including building permits, planning approvals, official approval documents, demolition compensation guidelines and standards, detailed compensation records from other villagers, testimonies from various witnesses who observed the construction process, as well as instances of forged signatures during the application for building permits—and corresponding forensic analyses of the notes involved.

However, during cross-examination, I focused solely on one key issue: whether the defendant had the intent for illegal possession. Based on this central point, I concentrated my questioning specifically on the evidence directly related to it. First, the land acquisition announcement clearly stated that constructing new buildings was prohibited after the notice was issued. Building on this established fact, I then examined evidence that could verify when the house was actually built: 1. The date of the application for building permits preceded the date of the land acquisition announcement. 2. The dates recorded in the electricity account opening documents—both the account setup and power connection—also occurred earlier than the announcement. 3. Additionally, witness testimony confirmed that the house was already completed by the month the announcement was released. Thus, the evidence presented by the prosecution actually revealed that the defendant constructed the house before the government’s land acquisition announcement. This clearly demonstrates that the defendant’s purpose wasn’t to illegally rush construction for demolition compensation—but rather to build and occupy the property as a matter of normal, lawful residence.

The other evidence presented by the prosecutor—such as demolition compensation standards, forged signatures, handwriting analysis, and whether the actual location of construction matched the approved plans—was substantial in volume. However, during cross-examination, I quickly dismissed most of it with just one or two sentences focused solely on its relevance. My goal was to ensure these points didn’t overshadow the key issues I wanted to emphasize.

In this case, the court directly and fully adopted my defense arguments, concluding that the defendant did not have the intent to illegally possess the property, and thus acquitted the defendant outright.

( 2) Guide the prosecutor in presenting key evidence and offer corresponding objections or challenges.   Example: Case of Chen Moumou, suspected of coercive trading

In this case, the prosecutor consistently read out testimonial evidence during the presentation of evidence—but these testimonies only established foundational and peripheral facts. We know that the crux of the charge of coercive trading lies in the use of violent or threatening tactics; however, the indictment provides merely a brief, cursory description of such violent or threatening methods. — " Threatening to disrupt the company's normal production ” The prosecutor, while reading the verbal evidence, only managed to recite this exact phrase from the victim's statement.

At this point, after obtaining permission from the panel, we interrupted the prosecutor and directly asked him to present evidence showing how the defendant used violence and how he issued threats. The prosecutor paused for a moment, then said: “ Good ” Then, we continued reading the evidence as originally planned. But until the presentation of evidence was complete, we didn’t hear a single piece of evidence suggesting that the defendant had used violence or intimidation tactics.

Finally, when we cross-examined this part of the content, it came down to a very simple statement. — " The prosecutor did not present any evidence demonstrating that the defendant engaged in specific acts of violence or intimidation, as alleged in the indictment. ‘ Threatening to disrupt the company's normal production ’ It does not constitute a threat to personal safety as required by law. ” As a result, the focus of our cross-examination became remarkably clear, allowing the panel to precisely grasp the key points of our arguments.

So, sometimes we can appropriately guide the prosecutor to present direct evidence on key points. Of course, this requires us to have a professional analysis of the case and a thorough understanding of the case files—specifically, when we clearly recognize that it would be difficult for the prosecutor to provide sufficient evidence to prove a particular fact at issue. At such moments, we can gently… “ Troublesome ” The prosecutor's remarks can help make our key points stand out more directly.

Second, continuously reinforcing key points means adjusting the way you present your arguments to emphasize important facts.

We often say that during cross-examination, you should emphasize the facts that favor your side. But simply repeating them will only lead to interruptions from the judge—so we need to vary how we present the same point.

Example: Case involving Zhou's alleged infringement of citizens' personal information

In the case, the prosecutor relied on two inspection reports and four expert opinions as evidence to accuse the defendant of illegally accessing a significant amount of citizens' personal information. As part of my cross-examination, I specifically questioned whether the server logs—used as the basis for the expert opinions—had already undergone deduplication procedures. —— If the logs haven’t undergone deduplication, it’s clear that the identified number of records cannot be directly equated to the actual number of citizens' personal information. After the prosecutor presented the examination records and the expert opinion, one of my points was that these two types of evidence did not indicate any data deduplication had taken place—and when I questioned the expert witness in court, the witness explicitly admitted that no deduplication was performed at all. Later, the prosecutor introduced another forensic analysis conducted by the same agency on Zhou’s personal phone data. Although the content of this phone analysis wasn’t relevant to the quantity of citizens’ personal information, nor did it touch upon other critical facts of the case, making it entirely dismissible or irrelevant to the charges—this very phone analysis unexpectedly revealed the significant value of deduplication. That’s why I decided to highlight this crucial point: before deduplication, Zhou’s phone contained an extensive list of phone numbers. 20000 Lines; after deduplication, the number of corresponding phone numbers and names is 120 Article. 20000 Clause and 120 Between the lines, the difference is 160 Multiple times over. Therefore, I submitted to the court that the quantity before deduplication must never be used as the sole basis for sentencing or conviction.

Although in this case I was presenting objections to the expert opinion on Zhou's personal phone data, I was actually emphasizing that the server logs—used as evidence—had not been deduplicated, making the expert opinion unreliable and inadmissible. Ultimately, the two inspection reports and four expert opinions, which served as key pieces of incriminating evidence, were dismissed entirely and could not be relied upon as the basis for a conviction.

Finally, I’d also like to emphasize that in terms of expression, clarity and structure are key—keep it concise yet layered.

This requires us to learn how to systematically challenge and analyze evidence. In legal proceedings, establishing facts demands that pieces of evidence corroborate one another—and in criminal cases, it even necessitates eliminating reasonable doubt. As a result, most of the time, a single piece of evidence (especially testimonial evidence) isn’t sufficient on its own to directly prove a particular fact. Therefore, questioning just one isolated piece of evidence often feels weak and fragmented, and repeating similar points later on can come across as redundant. To address this, we should encourage the prosecutor to present a full set of related evidence first. Afterward, we can clearly state our initial conclusion upfront, then use an inductive approach to highlight the facts that the evidence supports—or alternatively, contrast different pieces of evidence to expose any inconsistencies. If the panel understands and remains engaged by the conclusions we present, they’re more likely to stay attentive and follow along thoughtfully. On the other hand, if we fail to articulate our position clearly from the outset, the panel may end up piecing together their own understanding as they listen, which can quickly lead to mental fatigue. Ultimately, this risks diminishing the impact of our arguments and causing the judge’s insights to be overlooked altogether.

Another benefit of concise language is that it helps win over the panel—giving you the chance and time to thoughtfully weave in a couple of key points during your argument, wrapping up your remarks before the presiding judge even realizes what’s happening. This is also an effective way to reinforce your cross-examination arguments without risking interruption from the judge.

                        Introduction to Star Law Firm

       Beijing Xinglai Law Firm was established in 2020 At the end of the year, with “ Helping businesses build robust and compliant systems ” Dedicated to our mission, we focus on innovative corporate compliance services, complemented by high-end criminal, civil, commercial litigation, and non-litigation legal expertise—continuously delivering clients premium, comprehensive solutions tailored to their unique challenges. Together with Beijing Fayi Technology Co., Ltd., Xinglai has partnered with seasoned lawyers from its extensive collaborative network to create the first-ever digital product in China centered specifically on corporate compliance. — " Star-to-Intelligent Guidance - Corporate Criminal Compliance Index ”。

      Special Advisor at Xinglai Law Firm