In Their Defense.docx

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