[Direct answer]To adapt to intelligent justice, the key lies not in resisting or blindly accommodating it, but in redistributing defense resources: entrusting tools with tasks such as browsing electronic case files, searching for similar cases, and monitoring legal procedures, while ensuring that work requiring personal communication and professional judgment, such as reviewing the legality of evidence, cross-examining algorithmic conclusions, and assessing the necessity of detention, is carried out in depth and thoroughly. Intelligent justice has transformed the way defense work is conducted, but it has not changed the core principle of "using evidence as the basis for adjudication". Those who master the rules of electronic data collection and cross-examination will gain a greater degree of initiative in the new courtroom environment. Our firm has already been leveraging online case inquiries and electronic case files to improve response speed in procedures such as post-arrest detention necessity reviews.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

In recent years, criminal trials have not only involved case files and witnesses, but also synchronized audio and video recordings, blockchain evidence platforms, voice transcription systems and sentencing assistance software in smart courts. For lawyers, the changes manifest in three specific aspects: reviewing case files has shifted from paper-based documents to electronic ones, with materials numbering dozens of volumes requiring search tools to locate key pages; the forms of evidence have expanded from traditional physical and documentary evidence to massive electronic data, including chat records, driving logs, and backend logs, which may all become grounds for conviction; and in terms of procedural coordination, remote video hearings and online service notifications have compressed the information exchange that used to require face-to-face meetings. For family members, the most obvious experience is being able to check case progress online, but the textual information often provides clarity in terms of characters but lacks meaningful interpretation. Intelligence is a double-edged sword: when used effectively, lawyers can respond within hours during the "37-day golden period"; but when misused, massive data may dilute defense attention and crowd out the most labor-intensive stages. Another emerging trend is that digitalized workflows within case-handling agencies have accelerated progress, objectively narrowing lawyers' response windows. In the past, a legal opinion might take a week to refine, but now system statuses change daily. If family members wait until after family meetings to decide on hiring, the case may have already moved on. This explains why the intelligent era places even greater demands on human response speed—tools shorten each process step, requiring professional judgment to keep pace or risk losing efficiency gains to procedural risks. Another reminder for family members: don't reduce communication with lawyers just because progress can be checked online. The system shows milestones, but lawyers focus on anomalies between them—the two are not interchangeable. For an overview of criminal defense practice, please refer to this website.Criminal defense and criminal case filingHomepage.

II. Key points of contention

The main disputes focus on three areas. First, the review of the "three characteristics" of electronic data: authenticity requires checking the extraction transcripts, integrity check values, and the sealing of storage media; legality requires reviewing the evidence-gathering subjects and procedures; and relevance requires preventing the inclusion of massive unrelated data in the case file. Second, the defense space of remote video interrogations: screen communication may weaken the integrity of the defendant's statements, and defense attorneys should make up for this through meetings and, if necessary, raise objections to the compliance of the interrogation procedures. Third, the boundaries of sentencing assistance and case-based reasoning: the output of algorithms is only a reference. Mechanically relying on historical data may erase the differences between individual cases. Defense attorneys have the right to explain the factual differences between the current case and the recommended cases in court and demand a return to evidence-based adjudication. The common point of these three areas is that technological products must still be subject to the scrutiny of evidentiary rules. Intelligentization does not change the distribution of the burden of proof and will not make judgments on facts for anyone. The fourth area of dispute is data security and confidentiality: when electronic case files are transmitted via platforms and stored in the cloud, and communication between defense attorneys and clients also migrates online, attention should be paid to the boundaries of confidentiality obligations and terminal security. Sensitive materials are recommended to be stored locally encrypted, with only necessary summaries transmitted online, and important arguments should be communicated in person.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

Zooming back to a real case, we can gain a clearer understanding of where intelligent tools play their role. In the intentional injury case of A* represented by Attorney Lu Xiaoxue (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202311685747, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority), A* was criminally detained by the Daxing Branch of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau on July 13, 2024, on suspicion of intentional injury. On July 26, 2024, he was lawfully arrested and detained in the Daxing District Detention Center. The family entrusted a lawyer after the approval of the arrest, which was far beyond the "golden 37-day period." The defense team used online case information inquiry and electronic file retrieval to quickly verify the procedural nodes and document content, then met with the client multiple times to verify the injury appraisal and conflict process, and maintained active and constructive communication with the case-handling authorities and the procuratorate. After the public security organ refused to change the coercive measures, the defense team legally applied to the procuratorate for a review of the necessity of detention. Upon review, the procuratorate concluded that there was no need to continue detaining A*, and decided to change the coercive measure to bail pending trial. A* was released from detention and regained his freedom after the approval of the arrest. In the defense action list of this case, the electronic file helped the team quickly identify key contradictions in the injury appraisal and interrogation transcripts, but it was still the lawyer-client meetings, communication, and applications — work that cannot be replaced by algorithms — that ultimately secured bail. Intelligent tools enhance efficiency by "finding and viewing quickly," but professional judgment ensures accurate application. This approach can be replicated in other cases: first, use tools to sort out procedural nodes, file directories, and timelines, then let humans decide how to use each piece of evidence. Conversely, letting tools make conclusions first is precisely the most common failure mode of intelligent defense. At the same time, for families, rapid verification of the electronic file also means that the review workload in lawyers' quotes can be clearly explained, and the service content is transparent, which itself is an industry advancement brought by intelligence.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the regulatory level, Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018) has listed electronic data as a statutory type of evidence; the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (effective on March 1, 2021) provides detailed rules on the collection, extraction, transfer, display, and review of electronic data, and also sets corresponding requirements for some litigation activities conducted via video; the determination of charges still applies to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on December 26, 2020 and effective on March 1, 2021). Practical suggestions: 1. After receiving the electronic case file, first establish an evidence catalog and then verify the compliance records of the extraction process item by item; 2. For electronic data with abnormal volume, apply to the court for a focused review of its relevance to the facts to be proven; 3. Arrange two lawyer meetings before and after the remote interrogation to ensure that the defendant can give a full statement; 4. Make good use of online process inquiry to monitor the detention period, and immediately raise correction opinions if any overdue cases are found. Procedural defense and substantive defense should be advanced in parallel. 5. For the reference range provided by the sentencing auxiliary system, defense attorneys should require the prosecution to explain the data source and sample scope, and compare the mitigating circumstances of the case item by item to prevent the system's judgment from replacing the court's reasoning; on the family side, they should get used to sharing progress with lawyers through screenshots of key stages rather than verbally relaying "I heard the case has reached the procuratorate".

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Here's a translation of the Chinese text into English, with detailed explanations: \nA reminder for criminal defense colleagues and clients' families. Colleagues: The output of intelligent tools is just a draft. Every verification before and after signing the document still relies on human professional responsibility. Algorithm references cannot be directly included in the defense arguments as conclusions. Family members: After finding online milestones like "approval of arrest" or "prosecution," please immediately hand over the screenshots to defense lawyers for interpretation. The intervals between these milestones often hide procedural issues. Also, be wary of any fee-based services claiming to "intervene in cases using technical means." There's no such channel in criminal cases. The more advanced the technology, the more we need to return to the fundamentals of evidence and procedures—this is the conservation law of defense work in the intelligent era. Additionally, be aware of a new scam: fee-based services claiming to "use big data connections" or "insider knowledge of the system" to secure releases. These are just old scams repackaged under the guise of intelligence. Any actions that bypass meetings and procedures in the name of technology should first be reviewed by lawyers before discussing fees. Intelligence is a tool, while defense is a profession. The emphasis will always lie with the latter.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What evidentiary requirements must electronic data meet to be used as criminal evidence?

To sum up, it can be expressed in eight words: verifiable and traceable. The "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (effective March 1, 2021) requires that a transcript be made of the process of collecting and extracting electronic data, indicating the time, location, method, and operator of the extraction, with integrity verification attached. When conditions permit, the storage media should be sealed and photographed. During cross-examination, the original medium or verification value may be required to be presented. Electronic data for which the evidence-gathering subject is unqualified or the process cannot be reproduced will have its probative value significantly weakened. If family members save materials such as chat records themselves, they should keep the original mobile phone and not just hand over screenshots. It should also be noted that the evidence-gathering subject must be a statutory investigator or a person with corresponding qualifications entrusted by him/her. Records extracted by third-party platforms can usually only be used as clues rather than evidence.

Q2: Will remote video arraignments affect the suspect's right to self-defense?

The legality of the procedure does not mean that rights can be automatically exercised. Video hearings solve the problems of travel and cost, but there are shortcomings in screen communication, such as poor hearing, inability to see the full picture, and lack of private communication, which may lead defendants to give up the right to present their defense. There are three countermeasures: arrange a lawyer's meeting before and after the hearing, organize the defense points into a written outline for the defendants to grasp; if there are inconsistencies between the hearing transcript and the statement, apply for correction or supplementary questioning in time; and submit opinions to the case-handling organs against situations that deprive defendants of their right to self-defense in disguise. Self-defense and lawyer's defense complement each other. Procedural convenience should not come at the expense of the right to defense. It is necessary to be cautious about signing the plea of guilty and accepting the punishment in the video environment, and lawyers must fully explain the consequences before signing it.

Q3: Will the case recommendation function of smart courts limit the scope of defense?

It won't automatically compress, but it will shift the focus of the defense. The case-based recommendation provides judges with a reference framework for sentencing and qualification, and defense attorneys should actively respond to this reference framework: search for effective judgments that are more closely related to the facts of the case and submit them to the court, explaining the differences between the case and the recommended cases in terms of specific circumstances such as behavioral methods, causality, and compensation and understanding. In the aforementioned A case, the team conducted an analysis based on the injury appraisal and social dangerousness, without relying on any algorithm conclusions. The algorithm provides a statistical norm, and the value of individual case defense lies precisely in explaining the abnormal facts, which is a human task. Conducting case-based searches before the trial rather than during the trial is the basic skill of this type of adversarial litigation.

Q4: How can a defense attorney apply for a specialized review of algorithmic evidence?

In three steps. Firstly, identify the links in the evidence chain that rely on technical systems, such as inspection reports automatically generated by a certain software and appraisal opinions citing the output results of algorithms; Secondly, in accordance with Article 192 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on October 26, 2018), apply to the court to notify experts with specialized knowledge to appear in court and give opinions on the principles of algorithms, the sources of data, and the reproducibility of results; Thirdly, if necessary, apply for supplementary appraisal or reappraisal, and request the disclosure of the software version and parameter settings. The focus of the review is "whether the conclusions can be independently verified". Algorithm conclusions that cannot be verified should not be directly used as the basis for making a judgment. The burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and the defense lawyer can initiate a review motion by raising reasonable doubts.

Q5: How does the process alert in the case-handling system assist with custody review?

The assistance lies in transforming deadline management from remedial measures to proactive prevention. The online system displays the dates of detention, approval of arrest, and review of prosecution at each node, allowing defense attorneys to reverse-plan the submission windows for applying to change coercive measures and review the necessity of detention to avoid submitting materials at the end of the deadline. Families can also check the node intervals with lawyers through screenshots and promptly identify abnormal delays. Although the aforementioned A case had already exceeded the "golden 37 days", the team still used the node information to accurately select the timing of applying for review to the procuratorate. Tools control the timeline, while lawyers handle the reasons and materials. Only when the two work together can a complete procedural defense line be formed. System alerts are just reminders. It is still the lawyer's judgment and follow-up that turn deadline issues into defense opinions.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication standards in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Criminal defense legal services·Attorney Lu Xiaoxue·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.