News

Recently, a client named Zhen Shiyuan (a pseudonym) visited JAVY Law Firm to thank Partner Li Zonglin for his efforts in a case where the client was suspected of the offence of unlawful search. He presented a commemorative banner to express his appreciation for the outcome of the case.

01 A ‘Confused’ Plea of Guilt and Acceptance of Punishment

When the firm took on the case, there was just one week left before the trial. It was only just before the hearing that the client learned that the sentencing recommendation was a prison term of six months to one year (to be served in full). The client became extremely anxious and rushed to seek legal counsel.

“Mr Li, I truly do not believe I have committed a crime. I thought that if I pleaded guilty and accepted the penalty, and showed a good attitude, the prosecution would not press charges…”

During the investigation and prosecution review stages, Ms Zhen had not retained a lawyer, as she believed she had merely followed the victim into their courtyard and had not engaged in any other search activities. Following the incident, Ms Zhen had consistently cooperated fully with the judicial authorities, making a truthful confession and expressing her willingness to plead guilty and accept punishment, believing this would result in her case being dropped. It was only upon receiving the notice of the court hearing that she discovered the prosecution’s sentencing recommendation was for a custodial sentence, and that she had been identified as the ringleader of the gang. The stark contrast between her initial belief that ‘everything would be fine’ and the reality of ‘facing imprisonment’ left her utterly distraught.

02 Just one week until the trial

With time running out, lawyer Li Zonglin sprang into action immediately, booking a flight at the earliest opportunity to rush to the court to review the case files. He spent the night sifting through the documents page by page, carefully digesting their contents.

The following day, whilst going through the transcript with his client, Ms Zhen, she became visibly agitated: ‘These parts that are unfavourable to me—I never said those things! But my signature and fingerprint are clearly on the transcript…’

The signature was genuine, but was the content accurate and complete? Was the record objective? Had there been any coercion or leading questions?

To verify the authenticity, completeness and objectivity of the transcript, Attorney Li Zonglin immediately went to the court to apply for access to the synchronised audio-visual recording of the interrogation.

However, the results of the request were surprising: the synchronised audio-visual recording in the case file contained only video footage, with no audio whatsoever, and was incomplete.

Without audio, it is impossible to reconstruct exactly what the defendant said at the time, to verify whether the transcript is true, objective and complete, or to determine whether there was any coercion or leading questioning.

This means that the admissibility of this confession as evidence is seriously flawed.

Lawyer Li immediately moved before the court to have the confession excluded as illegal evidence.

The judge’s response was blunt: this was a gang crime; even if her own confession were excluded as illegal evidence, the confessions of the other co-defendants all implicated her. She had been involved throughout and remained an indispensable part of the case; it was she who had introduced the others, so the case could be decided entirely on the basis of the other defendants’ confessions.

Lawyer Li immediately applied to obtain the full synchronised audio-visual recordings of the other co-defendants’ statements, as the case file contained only a single recording of one co-defendant—and even that was incomplete, consisting solely of video without audio.

03 A Difficult Choice: Pleading Not Guilty or Accepting Guilt and Punishment

Judging by the details of the case, Zhen was deceived by the ringleader of the co-defendants. The latter claimed to be the Director of the Supervision Office of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and had shown Zhen an identity document. Zhen believed his identity and was unaware that the document was forged, which is why she followed the others into the victim’s courtyard. Prior to this, they had received information suggesting that the victim was suspected of embezzling a large sum of money. In Mr Zhen’s understanding, there was no subjective intent to conduct an unlawful search.

However, the other co-defendants in this case have already been tried separately, convicted and sentenced, all receiving actual prison terms. Even co-defendants with minimal involvement have pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, and have also been given actual prison terms. Now, to secure an acquittal for Mr Zhen, it may be necessary to overturn the classification of the entire case.

Prior to the hearing, Lawyer Li repeatedly discussed his defence strategy with the judge. The judge stated: ‘You have the right to mount a not-guilty defence. As a lawyer, you are well aware of the risks involved in overturning a plea of guilty and acceptance of punishment.’

Indeed, the current sentencing recommendation of six to twelve months’ imprisonment (a custodial sentence) is the result of a reduction based on the plea of guilty and acceptance of punishment. If the original plea is overturned, the sentencing recommendation may be increased. A not-guilty defence is a tough battle that requires the client’s understanding and support.

Lawyer Li explained the pros and cons of different defence strategies to Ms Zhen, respecting her genuine wishes and personal choice.

After thorough discussion with the client, she made it clear that she did not wish to bear the uncertainty and pressure that a not-guilty defence might entail; her primary desire was a suspended sentence—‘not to go to prison’. Ms Zhen felt she had been wronged and treated unfairly, but as she was of advanced age, she did not wish to endure further turmoil. Pursuing an acquittal would inevitably cause anxiety; she wished to secure a suspended sentence as soon as possible so she could move on from the pressure and shadow cast by this case, and was willing to accept the negative impact a suspended sentence might have on herself and her family.

04 From ‘Imprisonment’ to ‘Suspended Sentence’

Based on this core request, Lawyer Li promptly adjusted the defence strategy. Whilst maintaining the argument regarding flaws in the evidence and keeping the ‘not guilty’ defence as a contingency, he engaged in thorough communication with the court and the procuratorate. He highlighted the significant deficiencies in the case’s evidence and emphasised the client’s positive attitude towards pleading guilty, thereby seeking legal grounds for the application of a suspended sentence.

Ultimately, all parties reached an agreement: the client would maintain his plea of guilty and acceptance of punishment, whilst the sentencing recommendation would be for a suspended sentence. The client was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.

Having gone from “facing a custodial sentence” to “avoiding prison”, the client and his family made a special trip to the law firm after the judgement came into effect to present Attorney Li Zonglin with a commemorative banner.

A banner of appreciation represents praise, trust, and, above all, gratitude that words cannot express! This honour not only affirms JIA LAWYER’s professional competence but also recognises the overall strength of Jia Law Firm. In the future, Jia Law Firm will continue to uphold its philosophy of professional and dedicated service, constantly enhancing the professional expertise and service standards of its lawyers to provide clients with more comprehensive and in-depth legal services.