On the afternoon of June 12, 2026, the third installment of the “100 Criminal Defense Lawyers Forum,” organized by the Second Criminal Law Department, was successfully held at King&Capital Law Firm. The event featured Cong Zhuoyi, a consultant at King&Capital Law Firm, as the keynote speaker; four senior partners from the firm—Zang Desheng, Zhang Qiming, Wang Xintong, and Liu Lijie—as panelists; and attorney Qian Hao as the moderator. The speakers discussed defense strategies and communication methods for criminal cases, drawing on their frontline case handling experiences and real-life examples in relation to their respective presentation topics.
Consultant Cong Zhuoyi discussed the current criminal justice system and the practical environment, noting that China’s criminal procedure system has not yet fully shifted from an investigation-centered approach to a trial-centered one. The adversarial nature of the trial between the prosecution and defense has not yet been fully realized, the acquittal rate nationwide remains low, and it remains challenging to challenge the charges brought by the prosecution.
He proposed that criminal defense attorneys, when handling cases, should use the case files compiled by investigative or inquiry agencies as a foundation to accurately identify issues regarding evidence collection, factual determination, and legal application. When communicating with judges, they should adhere to the principles of “brevity, accuracy, and propriety,” focusing their defense on the most critical points of contention in the case and providing practical solutions. At the same time, he elaborated in detail on the key points for defense attorneys to communicate with judges before, during, and after trials. He recommended that evidence submitted by the defense prior to trial be closely linked to the defense’s key arguments, and that a summary of defense arguments be submitted to allow judges to understand the defense’s main positions and reasoning in advance; during the trial phase, questioning, cross-examination, and the presentation of defense arguments should focus on the disputed issues that most significantly impact the defendant’s conviction and sentencing; for written defense briefs submitted after the trial, the main body should be clearly structured and highlight key points, and for contentious issues in practice, a case law search report that balances the perspectives of both parties may be submitted.
He noted that constructive interaction and effective communication between defense attorneys and judges are built on mutual respect, understanding, and support. Such interaction not only helps attorneys maximize their clients’ rights and interests but also assists judges in resolving cases efficiently and fairly, preventing miscarriages of justice, and ultimately achieving a win-win outcome for all parties.
Drawing on the starkly different thought processes and professional stances of the two professions, Attorney Zang Desheng noted that judges, as neutral arbiters, must balance the demands of multiple parties and maintain the overall equilibrium of a case, tending to adopt a conservative and cautious approach. In contrast, attorneys prioritize safeguarding their clients’ legitimate rights and interests, and their defense strategies may be appropriately bold and assertive. He emphasized that criminal defense work must be reasonable, well-founded, and measured, balancing legal principles with human considerations. All defense arguments must be supported by evidence, legal provisions, and relevant case law, while precisely identifying the core claims and tailoring defense strategies to the specific nature of each case. When handling cases seeking an acquittal, external factors must be excluded, and effective defense pressure must be built upon professional evidence and legal analysis; when distinguishing between different criminal charges, the focus should be on legal argumentation; and when conducting sentencing defense, one must deeply explore the underlying circumstances and various discretionary factors of the case, employing a balanced approach that combines firmness and flexibility to secure the best possible outcome for the client.
Attorney Zhang Qiming focused on the use of language in court proceedings and daily communications, summarizing four core principles: sincerity, insight, perseverance, and competence. He emphasized that when lawyers express opinions publicly, they must ground them in evidence and the law, maintain an objective and sincere attitude, avoid exaggerating facts or fabricating arguments, and devote significant effort to thoroughly understanding all case facts. They must transcend the inherent limitations of case files to comprehensively assess the circumstances of the case, relying on solid groundwork—such as frequent client meetings, on-site investigations, and the sifting through vast amounts of materials—to build a strong foundation for the defense. In terms of presentation techniques, lawyers should skillfully use the opening remarks to capture the judge’s attention, follow a logical sequence of presenting facts first, legal principles second, and emotional appeal last, and strictly distinguish between the styles of oral and written submissions—ensuring oral statements are clear and accessible while written documents are rigorous and standardized. Throughout the process, arguments should remain closely aligned with the core defense points to comprehensively enhance the persuasiveness of verbal and written communication.
Drawing on her extensive practical experience, Attorney Wang Xintong summarized ten recommendations for persuading judges. She emphasized that lawyers must control the overall pace of the case, ensuring timely submission of procedural documents and a comprehensive, meticulous review of the case files, while paying particular attention to new case materials introduced during the court proceedings. When communicating with judges, lawyers should get straight to the point and keep their expressions concise; they should understand the judge’s reasoning and work habits from the judge’s perspective, recognize the working relationship between the prosecution and the court, and, regarding key evidence-gathering matters, lawfully request the investigating authorities to obtain evidence, thereby increasing the likelihood of evidence being admitted. Lawyers must also prepare supplementary materials—such as charts and summaries—tailored to the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial phases to help judges understand complex case details. They should proactively cooperate with court clerks to complete support tasks, thoroughly grasp the details of the case files, and effectively manage the courtroom proceedings. Throughout their long-term practice, lawyers must continuously build their professional credibility by properly citing evidence sources in legal documents and refining their searches for similar cases, thereby maximizing convenience for judges in adjudicating cases.
Drawing on his experience working in the courts, Attorney Liu Lijie focused on explaining how to integrate judicial reasoning into the entire criminal defense process. He advocated that lawyers adopt a “final outcome” mindset: from the very beginning of a case, they should combine judicial practice, similar precedents, and all the facts of the case to predict the most likely judicial outcome, and then work backward to formulate an overall defense strategy. He pointed out that attorneys should identify key entry points among the complex facts and legal issues of a case, and allocate time and effort toward courtroom arguments, document drafting, and communication specifically around core defense arguments, ensuring a focused and targeted approach. He emphasized that while courtroom debates are crucial, effective communication and coordination with judges, prosecutors, clients, and their families are equally important, and that attorneys should maintain an open mindset to incorporate perspectives from various professional fields. During the final segment of presenting defense arguments, lawyers should distill core arguments and elevate the substance of their case, ensuring a harmonious integration of emotion, reason, and law. Furthermore, while presenting defense arguments, lawyers should also propose reasonable and feasible pathways for the case’s adjudication, providing all parties with appropriate outcomes and thereby maximizing the effectiveness of the defense.
At the conclusion of the event, host Qian Hao provided a comprehensive summary of the entire session. He noted that the speakers had analyzed, from multiple dimensions—including the current state of the judiciary, differences in thinking, language skills, practical methods, and defense philosophies—and using real-life cases, the ways in which lawyers and judges can engage in constructive interaction to achieve effective defense. Their insights provided significant inspiration to the attending lawyers, and the event concluded successfully.
“100 Voices on Criminal Defense” is a column dedicated to the exchange of criminal defense practices, meticulously crafted by the Second Criminal Law Department of King&Capital Law Firm. It focuses on cutting-edge developments and core issues in China’s criminal defense field. Structured around criminal defense practice, this column features multidimensional dialogues among senior lawyers, experts, scholars, and judicial practitioners to deeply analyze key topics such as legal controversies in high-profile cases, strategies for handling complex cases, defense techniques for new types of crimes, and criminal risk prevention and control. The content covers specialized areas such as the intersection of substantive and procedural law, practical experience in evidence presentation and rebuttal, and strategies for substantive trials. It not only showcases the intellectual exchange inherent in the art of criminal defense but also distills proven practical wisdom.
