In Their Defense.docx
- 文档编号:28242957
- 上传时间:2023-07-09
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:6
- 大小:18.98KB
In Their Defense.docx
《In Their Defense.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《In Their Defense.docx(6页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
InTheirDefense
InTheirDefense
IntheSupremePeople’sCourt’snewproposaltodeepenjudicialreforms,releasedinlateFebruary2015,theword“lawyer”wasoneofthemostfrequentlyused?
Cformany,thiswasasignthatthedocument’smainintentionwastosafeguardlawyers’rights.
Attheendof2014,theSupremePeople’sProcuratoratealsoissuedaregulationonsafeguardinglawyers’rights,statinginnouncertaintermsthatlawyersmustbeguaranteedtheirlawfulrightstomeetwithcriminalsuspectsanddefendants,accesscasefiles,andapplytocollectevidence.TheregulationmarkedthethirdtimethatChina’stopprocuratoratehadintroducedrulestoprotectlawyers’rights,havingpreviouslydonesoin2004and2006.
ZhouZe,acriminaldefenselawyer,toldNewsChinathatthisprovedthatlawyers’rightsareasorespot.“Otherwise,whywouldthematterneedtobeemphasizedoverandover?
”
Anothercriminaldefenselawyer,ZhangYansheng,agreedwithZhou.ZhangwasthelawyerdefendingNianBin,aconvictreleasedfromprisonin2014afterbeingclearedofamurdercharge.Nianhadbeenfoundguiltyontwocountsofmurderin2006inPingtan,FujianProvince,aftertwoofhisneighborsdiedofpoisoning.
Zhang,togetherwithsixotherlawyers,walkedoutofcourttoprotestillegaljudicialproceduresduringatrialinHuizhou,GuangdongProvinceinJanuary2015.
ZhangJianwei,alawprofessoratTsinghuaUniversity,saidChina’sjudicialorgansandcriminaldefenselawyersarepilingpressureoneachother,creatingatensesituationwhichmay“backfireandtraptheminaviciouscircle.”
ChillingEffect
InMarch2014,thegovernment-affiliatedBeijingLawyersAssociation(BLA)issuedaguidelinebanninglawyersandlawfirmsfromdisclosinglitigationdocumentsandclientstatementsinanyway,orleakingcaseinformationtounauthorizedpersonnelbeforeacourtjudgmenttakeseffect.
Separately,theAllChinaLawyersAssocia-tion(ACLA)attemptedtorevisetheprovisionalRulesforPunishmentofMembers’Misconduct,andtheRulesofProfessionalConductforLawyers.Currently,punishableoffensesincludefailingtoshowrespecttoajudge,publicprosecutor,arbitratororanyothercourtpersonnel;refusingtospeakindefenseofthedefendantoronbehalfofthelitigantinacourttrial;andleavingcourtwithoutpermission.
InOctober2014,adraftamendmenttothecountry’sCriminalLawwassubmittedtotheStandingCommitteeoftheNationalPeople’sCongressforreview,includingamodificationtoArticle35intendedtoincriminatethosewho“insult,slanderorthreaten”judicialworkersandparticipantsinalawsuit. However,ofgreatestconcerntolawyerswasanACLAplantosetupa“disciplinaryworkguidingcommittee”tosuperviselocallawyers’associations,madeupofmembersoftheSupremePeople’sCourt,theSupremePeople’sProcuratorate,theMinistryofPublicSecurity,theMinistryofJusticeandanumberofacademics.
AlawyerwhospokeonconditionofanonymitytoldNewsChinathatsincelawyersarebynatureinoppositiontopoliceandprocuratorialauthoritiesincourt,thedisciplinaryworkguidancecommitteewouldenableauthoritiestoimposerestrictionsonlawyersoutsideofcourt,likelyleadingtoimproperinterventionintheabilityoflawyerstodefendtheirclients.
ProfessorZhangJianweisaidthatgiventhatChineselawyers’defenserightswerenotfullyprotected,newrestrictionswouldinevitablystirresentment.
LawyerZhouZesaidthatoneaimoftheBLA’snewguidelinewastotargetlawyerswho,facinganunfairplayingfieldincourt,resorttoextrajudicialmeasures.“Sometimeslawyersturntopublicopinionforhelp,”hetoldNewsChina.“Bymakingtheirvoicesheardonline,theycanexposeandcriticizeillegalbehaviorinthecourtroom.”
Amidstrongprotests,implementationofthenewguidelinewascalledofflessthantwomonthsafteritcameintoforce,andtheACLA’stwodocumentsalsofailedtomate-rialize.WhethertherevisiontoArticle35oftheCriminalLawcanpasslegislativereadingsremainsunknown,butsuchrules,designedtorestrictlawyers’freedomtospeakincourt,indicatethatjudicialorgansarefeelingtheheatfromincreasinglyoutspokenlawyers.
ProfessorZhangsaidtherules,Article35inparticular,couldcausea“chillingeffect”incourt.“TheLawonLawyersstipulatesthatlawyersenjoytherightofimmunityincourt,”Zhangsaid.“Iflegislatorspass[theamendmentto]Article35,lawyerswillbehighlylikelytocommitthecrimeof‘insulting,slanderingorthreatening’thejudgeorthepublicprosecutor,andthustheirlawfulrightswillbehardtosafeguard.”
NewObstacles
LawyerZhangYansheng,withmorethan30yearsofexperienceintheprofession,toldNewsChinathatthiswasnotthefirsttimeChineselawyershadmetwithoccupationalrisks.
AnamendmenttoChina’sCriminalProcedureLaw,whichtookeffectin1997,createddifficultiesforlawyersinthreemainareas:
withclientsgettingaccesstofiles,andinvestigatingandobtainingevidence. Theproblemsweresolvedtoalargeextentaftera2012revisiontotheCriminalProcedureLaw,butthreenewdifficultiessoonemerged:
excludingillegallyobtainedevidence,requestingexaminationofevidence,andapplyingforwitnessestobepresentincourt.
Excludingillegallyobtainedevidencefromtrialsisacommonpracticeincriminaldefense.Ifthepoliceortheprocuratorateobtainsevidenceagainstadefendantbytortureoranyotherillegalmeans,thelawyercanappealtothecourtforrejectionofevidence.
However,China’srulesonexcludingillegallyobtainedevidencewerejointlysetbythecountry’shighestjudicialauthoritiesincollaborationwiththeMinistryofJustice,andtookeffectlessthanfiveyearsago.Itishighlyunusualforacourttograntalawyer’srequesttoexcludeillegalevidence.
In2013,theBeijing-basedShangquanLawFirmconductedasurveyontheimplementationofthenewCriminalProcedureLaw.Whenaskedabouttheexclusionofillegalevidenceduringcourttrials,123ofthe318lawyerssurveyedsaidthecourtheldapermissiveattitudetowardtheprosecutingparty’sobligationtotestify,132saidthecourtignoredrequestsmadebythedefendant,and103saidthecourtinitiatedanexclusionprocedurebutmadenojudgmentonwhetherornotapieceofdisputedevidencewasillegal.
LawyerZhangYanshengsaidfailingtoexcludeillegallyobtainedevidencecausedaperniciousconsequence?
Cconfessionsareroutinelyextractedthroughtorture.“Asthecourtdidn’tjudgethattheevidencewasillegallyobtained,itwashardtopunishthosewhohadusedtorturetocoercethedefendantintomakingaconfession.”
Checkingevidenceisanothermajorissuethatcouldhaveabiginfluenceonjudgment.Severalcriminaldefenselawyers,speakingonconditionofanonymity,toldNewsChinathat,nowadays,physicalevidenceisrarelyseenincourtduringcriminaltrials,withtheprosecutingpartygenerallysimplypresentingphotographicevidence.Accordingtotherespondentstothelawfirm’ssurvey,somelocalcourtsevenroutinelyfailtoshowkeyevidencesuchasjudicialappraisalsduringtrials,andlawyers’requeststoreviewphysicalevidencearerarelygranted.
Regardingrequeststhatwitnessesattendcourtproceedings,195ofthe318lawyerssurveyedsaidthatcourtswouldusuallyapprovetheattendanceofwitnessesforthedefense,butonly74saidthesamewastrueforwitnessesfortheprosecution. ‘UnitedFront’
Partofthepressurelawyersfeelcomesfrombiasinherentinthelawitself.
AccordingtotheCriminalProcedureLaw,witnessescantestifyincourtonlywhenthecourtdeemsifnecessary,accordingtoprofessorZhang,meaning“thecourtisthekeyfactorindeterminingwhetherwitnesseswillshowupincourtornot.”
InlawyerZhouZe’sopinion,thedifficultieslawyersarefacingcanbeattributedtothelackofpunitivemeasuresapplicabletojudicialauthorities.“Courtsandprocuratorateswillbearnoadverseconsequencesfromfailingtoshowevidenceornotallowingwitnessestoattendtrials.”
ProfessorZhangproposedsanctionsonjudicialmisconduct.Ifthecourtfailstohonoritsobligations?
Cfailingtoshownecessaryevidenceorallowkeywitnessestoattendthetrial,forinstance?
Cthedefendantshouldbeentitledtoappealtoahighercourtorrequestaretrial,hesaid.
ProfessorZhangJianweisaidtherootoftheproblemliesinthedoublestandardsinherentinChina’sjudicialsystem.“Forexample,withregardtothepolice,procuratoratesandjudicialworkers,thecourtassumesthathumannatureisgood,meaningthattheirmisconduct?
Csuchasillegallyobtainingevidence?
Cisdeemedtobefortheproperpurposeofclearingupthecase,”Zhangsaid.“Butfordefendantsandtheirlawyers,humannatureisassumedtobeevil,meaningthattheyintendtodowrong.”
Doublestandardsalsoexistwhenweighingevidence,hesaid.Whenadefenselawyerasksthecourttoinvestigatesuspecteduseoftortureinobtainingconfessions,investigatingauthoritiesneedonlyshowaverificationdocumentclaimingthatuponreview,noillegalactivitywasfoundintheprocessofobtainingtheevidence.Thesedocuments,someofwhicharehand-writtenandareissuedbyinvestigatingorgans,areacceptedbycourtsasaproofthattherewasnomisconductintheprocessofobtainingevidence.
“Butit’shardtoimaginethecourtallowingthefatherofadefendanttowriteanotetoprovethathissonwasinnocent.”
Thepolice,theprocuratorateandthecourt,whichshouldbeindependentfromoneanother,havenowunited,hesaid.Inordertomaintainthis“unitedfront,”defenselawyers
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- In Their Defense
![提示](https://static.bdocx.com/images/bang_tan.gif)