View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Louisiana State University: DigitalCommons @ LSU Law Center Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2007 Addressing the Emergence of Advocacy in the Chinese Criminal Justice System: A Collaboration Between a U.S. and a Chinese Law School Robert Lancaster Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Xiangshun Ding Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Repository Citation Lancaster, Robert and Ding, Xiangshun, "Addressing the Emergence of Advocacy in the Chinese Criminal Justice System: A Collaboration Between a U.S. and a Chinese Law School" (2007). Journal Articles. 180. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/180 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCE OF ADVOCACY IN THE CHINESE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A COLLABORATION BETWEEN A U.S. AND A CHINESE LAW SCHOOL Robert Lancaster & Ding Xiangshun * INTRODUCTION Criminal procedure law in China has been in a state of tran­ sition since the latter part of the twentieth century. The transi­ tion has been a slow move from an historically inquisitorial sys­ tem codified in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1979 ("1979 Code") to a more adversarial system framed by the Criminal Pro­ cedure Code of 1996 ("1996 Code").1 A new criminal proce­ dure code is expected in 2007 that is predicted to shift Chinese criminal procedure into an even more adversarial trial system.2 Despite the adversarial trial elements introduced in the 1996 Code and those expected in 2007, the Chinese criminal trial will * Ro bert Lancaster is an Associate Clinical Professor of Law at the Indiana Univer­ sity School of Law-Indianapolis, and is Director of the China Law Summer Program, a joi m project of Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis and Renmin University of China School of Law. Ding Xiangshun is an Associate Professor of Law at the Ren min University of China School of Law, and is Program Coordinator for the China Trial Advocacy Institute. 1. See Xiao Yang, Xiao Yang Emphasizes the Special-Invited Consultaion and Conversation of the Su/Jrrme Comt: The judicial Refonn in Peojlle's Court must meet the Situation of the Nation rw<L Gor.1 FmwanlStep lty Strp, PEol'u�-.;CouRT DAILY, Feb. 23, 2006 (emphasizing that the r r judicial efo m in people's court must meet the situation of the nation and progresses st 1 e q by st p. Xiao Yang, President of the Supreme Court of China, stated that revisions r m in the c i inal procedure law and promulgation of the civil procedure law are leading the rhangcs in China from an inquisitorial justice system to an adversarial system. Al­ though the rnrrcntcriminal procedure code does contain more adversarial elements ' it rn11ai11s largdy an inquisitorial system.). 2 .'irr Du Wenjuan, Three Experts Tall' About the A11umdment of the Criminal Procedural /,mo, l'F.ol'u:'s DA11.v, Nov. 9, 2005. Fan Chongyi, Professor and Director of the Proce­ dural I .aw R<"scarch Center of China University of Political Science and Law, points out that thl' srholars have reached agreement on the amendments of the criminal procedu­ r;d l;1w. 356 ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCE OF ADVOCACY 357 still be far less adversarial than its Anglo-American counterpart.3 The Chinese system clearly remains an inquisitorial one, with some limited adversarial elements in its trial process. Further­ more, the changes in the 1996 Code notwithstanding, Chinese judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys have done little to im­ plement the few adversarial elements allowed into the Chinese criminal trial. Even though the adversarial developments in Chi­ nese criminal procedure are limited, they have the potential to substantially change the Chinese criminal trial system to one that has greater respect for the rights of the accused and fairness of process. Therefore, there is a need for the legal professionals involved in the Chinese criminal justice system to better under­ stand the adversarial system of justice and the corresponding roles of the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense within such a system. There have also been a number of other legal reforms in China during this same period as China began an evolution to­ wards a nation ruled by law. In addition to economic law re­ form, two notable legal reforms came in the areas of legal educa­ tion and the professionalization of judges and prosecutors. 4 This Article addresses how the procedural, educational, and professional changes have affected criminal trial procedure and criminal trial practice in China. It discusses how these changes have created a need for Chinese criminal judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to be well versed in the adversarial pro­ cess. It describes how the China Trial Advocacy Institute, a col­ laborative project between Renmin University of China School of Law and Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis, has developed to help address this emerging need. 3. Chen Weidong, Professor and Director of the Research Center of Procedural System and Judicial Reform at Renmin University of China Law School, also empha­ sized that it is important to establish the fundamental environment of enforcement of the adversarial system in the amendment of 1996 Code. See CHEN WEIDONG, ADVER­ SARIAL SYSTEM AND RE-AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAw, http://www.civil law.com.cn/weizhang/ default.asp?id=24836 (last visited Nov. 30, 2006). 4. There have been some significant changes in the legal profession and in legal education in recent years, including the passage of the Judges Law, the Public Prosecu­ tors Law, and the Lawyers Law. There has also been a big increase in the number of law schools during the period from 1995 to 2005. See infra Part II. 30:356 358 FO RDHAMIN TERNATIONAL LAWJOURNAL [Vol. I. THE EMERGENCE OF THE ADVERSARIAL CRIMINAL TRIAL IN CHINA The 1979 Code codified an inquisitorial criminal justice procedure. The general framework of the Chinese inquisitorial system was that the judge5 played an active role as the collector and arbiter of evidence. Because the judge was responsible for deciding whether the evidence was sufficient to support the charges, thus meriting a trial, the judge worked closely with the procuratorate6 before trial to review the evidence. During trial, the judge also was responsible for the presentation of evidence and determined its veracity and weight.7 Chinese legal scholars have argued that this rigid, judge-centered trial system was neces­ sary to bring quick order to the chaos existing at the time of the 1979 Code.8 However, with China's rapid economic develop­ ment and increasing participation in the world market, Chinese political, social, economic, and cultural norms also found them­ selves changing rapidly.9 As a result, the problems inherent in the inquisitorial criminal trial system became more apparent.10 China's economic legal reforms helped pave the way for the re- 5. The term 'judge" in this Article refers to a "collegiate" bench which consists of several persons equally presiding over the case. Those persons may be a mixture of professional judges and lay persons appointed by the local people's congress. 6. The official prosecuting arm of the State in China is the Procuratorate. The terms "procuratorate," "procurator," and "prosecutor" are used interchangeably in this Article. 7. Under the 1979 Code, the judge held the leading and controlling position re­ garding both the pretrial investigation and the conduct of the trial. Article 108 of the 1979 Code provided that the presiding judge decided which evidence needed to be collected during the pretrial investigation of the case. The presiding judge also may decide the order of the witnesses and evidence to be presented at trial as well as taking the leading role at trial. See Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, art. 108 (P.R.C.) ( 1979) (The criminal procedure code was promulgated by The Na­ tional People's Congress on .July 1, 1979 and became effective Jan. l, 1980); see also < :lwn Wciclong, Chinese. Criminal Procedure and Practice: Fairness, Efficiency and the Jntro­ d11r/11m 11/ tlw Arlvn:mrial l�lmumt, in C1-1tNA TRIAL ADVOCACY HANDBOOK 157 (Herbert D. Bowman ed., 2005). H .'ii'!' : . H11 111g Taiyun, Tiu· Significant Reforms of the Criminal Procedural Sysf.lim, . 2 < .111-.;.\ I.ELA!. Sci., Apr., 1996. �l .'ii'!· Cu AngTa , . n "/'h1' f:x/Jlmwlions on Amending of the Criminal Procedural Law of l'.IU:. :I (;A1.1·:.n1·: STA�ll!N(; CoMMllTEI·: Nxr'L PEOPLE's CONGRESS P.R.C., Mar. 12, 1996. <•II :\n ran 1s the Direct.or g of the Commission of Legislative Affairs for the National l'eopks ( :ongrcss. 10 . .-\lthough historically China has never effeclively subscribed to the notion of cq11;1lt1,· hdon· the law, lhc concept was included in the 1982 Constitution. See P.R.C. (.""'I. ;11t. :1:1 ('.:!) ( 1 �lH'.:!). 2007] ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCE OF ADVOCACY 359 forms of its criminal justice system.11 Those problems are dis­ cussed below. A. Problems With the 1979 Code First, the criminal trial was a mere administrative formality because the emphasis was on the judge's pre-trial investigation and examination of the evidence. Under the 1979 Code, the judge was charged with collecting and examining evidence before the court was ever called into session. Most of the evi­ dence was verified through this pre-trial process.