Live Broadcast ｜风雨飘摇中的两审终审制直播纪要
导读｜ Introduction
2024年6月29日，汉鼎刑辩论坛第二期在北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所举行。论坛就“风雨飘摇中的两终审制度”这一主题，围绕数起违反两审终审制的典型案例，特邀北京泽亨律师事务所张雪峰律师、北京泽博律师事务所刘征律师、北京市汉鼎联合律师事务所张庆方律师、何智娟律师以及广西申诉案的家属共同研讨，知名法律人袭祥栋担任主持人。
On June 29, 2024, the second session of the Handing Criminal Defense Forum was held at the Handing United Law Firm in Beijing. The theme, "Turbulence in the two-instance final judgment system," focused on discussing five cases that violated this system. Guest speakers included attorneys Zhang Xuefeng from Beijing Zeheng Law Firm, Liu Zheng from Beijing Zebo Law Firm, Zhang Qingfang, and He Zhijuan from Handing United Law Firm, alongside family members from a notable Guangxi appeal case. The renowned legal expert Xi Xiangdong hosted the forum.
01 违反两审终审的案件介绍 | Cases of Violation of the two-instance final judgment system
1、一审法院判决加盖二审法院公章——泰安恶势力案｜1. The First-Instance Court Judgment Stamped with the Second-Instance Court Seal – The Taian Underworld Case
根据本案的辩护律师张雪峰律师的介绍，本案系以组织领导黑社会性质组织罪、聚众斗殴罪以及强迫交易罪移送到泰安市岱岳区人民检察院。经过审查将组织领导黑社会去掉了，留有余地的将恶势力诉至泰安市岱岳区人民法院。本案在岱岳区人民法院开庭十多天，辩护律师感受到整个过程中存在着诸多程序与实体上的问题。2024年4月20号，岱岳区法院对该案进行宣判并送达了一份判决书，辩护人因在海口中院开庭没有参与宣判。5月24号，在海口中院的法庭上，辩护人又收到12368诉讼服务平台推送的短信，即岱岳区人民法院推送了一份电子版的判决书，然而此份判决书上最后的签章是山东省泰安市中级人民法院的签章。辩护律师在惊讶之余对此进行了公开，有媒体采访了泰安两级人民法院，泰安两级人民法院给出的意思是说签章的密钥发生了错误。然而，首先中级人民法院的公章不可能让基层人民法院掌握了密钥；其次，送达的两份判决书里有明显的区别，岱岳区人民法院送的纸质版的判决书里写道“本件与原件核对无异”，但是电子版盖泰安市中级人民法院公章的判决书里写道“本件与原本核对无异”。对此，辩护律师认为判决书是不能生效的，送达也是无效的。因为本案相当于送达了两份判决书，且最后收到的一份加盖的是泰安市中级人民法院的公章。此外，既然发生了上级人民法院对下级人民法院进行了干预，本案管辖上不能由泰安市人民法院继续进行审理。近期，辩护律师已收到针对此案铺天盖地的媒体邀请，不久前也收到山东高院的案件回访调查。对于本案，关注的人都觉得本案出现的一审判决加盖二审泰安市中院公章是明显有违公平公正的，此等二审法院的实质性干预是史无前例的。
Defense lawyer Zhang Xuefeng introduced that this case was initially charged with leading an organized crime group, engaging in mass brawling, and forced trading, and was transferred to the Taian City Daiyue District People's Procuratorate. After review, the leading organized crime group charge was dropped, but the charge of engaging in underworld activities was left and taken to the Taian City Daiyue District People's Court. The trial lasted over ten days, during which the defense lawyer noted numerous procedural and substantive issues. On April 20, 2024, the Daiyue District Court rendered a judgment and delivered a verdict, which the defense lawyer could not attend as he was in court in Haikou Intermediate Court. On May 24, in the Haikou Intermediate Court, the defense received a text from the 12368 litigation service platform indicating that the Daiyue District People's Court had issued an electronic version of the judgment, which bizarrely bore the seal of the Shandong Province Taian City Intermediate People's Court. The defense lawyer, surprised, made this public, leading to media interviews with the Taian courts at both levels, who claimed a key error occurred with the seal. However, it is implausible for a higher court’s seal to be accessible to a lower court; additionally, there were clear differences between the two versions of the judgment delivered—the paper version from the Daiyue District stated, "this copy is identical to the original," while the electronic version stamped by the Taian Intermediate Court stated, "this copy matches the original." As a result, the defense lawyer argued that the judgment could not be effective, and the delivery was invalid. This case effectively had two judgments delivered, the final one bearing the seal of the Taian City Intermediate People's Court. Furthermore, since there was interference from a higher court, the case jurisdiction could no longer be handled by the Taian City People's Court. Recently, the defense lawyer has received extensive media invitations and an inquiry from the Shandong High Court regarding this case. Observers believe that the first-instance judgment bearing the stamp of the second-instance Taian City Intermediate Court clearly violated fairness and justice, marking an unprecedented substantive intervention by the second-instance court.
2、上级法院微信群遥控指挥庭审——青海海西州天峻县案｜2. WeChat Group Directly Commanding the Court Session — Qinghai Haixi State Tianjun County Case
根据本案的辩护律师刘征律师的介绍，本案此前二审发回重审，后续的多次庭前会议中，辩护律师提出了针对本案检察院的诸多问题，包括起诉书缺少构成要件、原审一名被告已去世但法检均未依法作出处理等，但均没有得到法院及检察院的正式回应，而是被告知庭前会议不开了，直接开庭。在正式开庭过程中，藏民当事人申请自行聘请一位既懂法律又懂藏语的翻译，以对法庭的翻译起到补充和监督的作用，但该方案在取得了律师所在地司法局领导的认可的情况下，却被上级领导否定，禁止当事人自行聘请的翻译说话。据青海省司法厅的一个旁听人员说，方案是报给了法院院长的，但院长也做不了主。同时，审理本案原二审的中院主审法官哈斯庭长，也被家属发现出现在本次开庭的法庭上，辩护律师将此情况反映给本案书记员也没有得到任何回应。上述诸多反常情况已使得辩护律师心存疑虑。开庭中，辩护律师发现了一份直到开庭都没有见到过的案卷，结合本案二审发回的理由即为证据未经质证，辩护律师方才离开辩护席去找合议庭及书记员沟通阅卷权等事宜。在路过审判席的时候，发现电脑界面显示哈斯庭长等人微信群遥控指挥庭审，辩护人立即拍照取证。此时，一直不做回应的公诉人，突然之间有了态度并喊了法警，辩护席发现后也去固定证据，后来书记员与法警在公诉人的指挥下想灭失证据，辩护律师见状便报警，这就是海西中院通报的所谓的法庭秩序的混乱。但实际上，发生此事全过程均是在休庭过程中。公安人员很快到达现场，在律师反映此事问题很大需要留存证据后，办案人员将涉事电脑主机封存并搬到公安局，将辩护律师带走做笔录。后天峻县法院院长以及司法局领导到场，要求彻底删除照片，配合法庭做训诫笔录并将庭审继续开下去，遭到了律师的反对。后辩护律师接到了消息，涉事法院院长要对其进行司法拘留。5月13日，海西州中院发布通报，当天辩护律师即发文回应并向公众告知了事情经过。不久前，青海省高院的信访部门告知辩护律师很快会给通知，并确定改变管辖。
Defense attorney Liu Zheng introduced that this case had been sent back for retrial at the second-instance level, and during multiple pre-trial meetings, the defense raised several issues with the prosecution, including lack of essential elements in the indictment and the death of a defendant not being legally processed, which the courts and prosecution did not formally address; the meetings were abruptly halted, and the court proceeded directly to trial. During the trial, the Tibetan client requested a translator knowledgeable in both the law and Tibetan language to ensure accurate court interpretation, which was initially approved by the judicial authority local to the lawyer but later vetoed by higher-ups, prohibiting the privately hired translator from speaking. According to a judicial bureau observer, the plan was reported to the court president, who had no authority to decide. Concurrently, the original second-instance judge overseeing the case, Judge Haas, was spotted in the courtroom, with no response from the court clerk when the defense lawyer raised the issue. These anomalies caused great concern for the defense. During the trial, the defense discovered a case file that had not been seen until the trial started, corresponding with the grounds for the second-instance return concerning unverified evidence. While passing the judges' bench, the defense saw a computer screen showing Judge Haas and others in a WeChat group directly commanding the court session, and the defense took photos as evidence. Suddenly, the previously unresponsive prosecutor called for the bailiffs, and the defense secured further evidence. Subsequently, the court clerk and bailiffs, under the prosecutor’s direction, attempted to destroy the evidence, prompting the defense to call the police, leading to what the Haixi Middle Court reported as "courtroom disorder." However, the entire incident occurred during a court recess. Police quickly arrived at the scene, and after the lawyer highlighted the severity of the issue, the involved computer was sealed and moved to the police station, and the defense lawyer was taken for questioning. The next day, the Tianjun County Court president and judicial leaders arrived, demanding the deletion of photos and continuation of the trial with a reprimand record, which the lawyer opposed. The defense lawyer was later informed that the court president intended to detain him judicially. On May 13, the Haixi State Middle Court issued a statement, and the defense lawyer responded publicly on the same day, informing the public about the incident. Recently, the Qinghai High Court’s petition department notified the defense lawyer that a notice would soon be issued, confirming a change of jurisdiction.
3、二审法院直接干预并“指导”审判结果——广西高院申诉案｜3. Direct Intervention and "Guidance" of Trial Outcomes by the Second-Instance Court – Guangxi High Court Appeal Case
根据本案的辩护律师何智娟律师的介绍，此前本案的二审律师在辩护过程当中阅到了一本标为正卷的案卷，它不是副卷，只是在卷宗编号上面标的是“卷零”。该份“卷零”中有大量信息表明了广西高院直接对本案的审理结果进行干预。首先，做出这本卷的一个依据是广西高院内部的大要案的汇报制度，其中详细记述了一审合议庭讨论并由审判长转述高院法官对本案“指导意思”的过程。例如，案卷中某处写道，本案一审的审判长表示高院的“指导人”雷姓法官，打电话说正式通报广西高院对于这个案件的处理结果，而且这个结果是经过吴姓庭长汇报给了陈姓副院长后，由陈副院长亲自把关的。据辩护律师了解，二审的审判长恰好就是这个“指导人”。又如，案卷中某处表面，一审法院认为某被告人不构成诈骗罪，但高院认为既然公诉机关已经起诉了，还是要认定构成诈骗，最后硬是给这个人判了诈骗。再如，本案当事人黄伟涉及一起民事借贷纠纷，在已向法院提起民事诉讼的情况下被硬生生判了诈骗。当时一审至少是认为其中有70万是不应该认定的，但高院干预说不行，既然其他130万都认定了，70万也得要认定，最后硬生生又给他加了70万。此外，本案二审辩护律师曾要求“指导人”雷法官回避，雷法官表面回避了，但替代他的新法官竟然在没有提审当事人且没开庭审理的情况下就完成了判决。而此前雷法官的提审也近乎于走流程，他同一天提审了8个人，最短的一个人就问了5分钟。上述种种迹象表明，本案一审判决实际上已经是二审法院决定的，所以二审法院仅仅做表明工作应付流程。最后，辩护律师了解到本案一审有部分律师，他们收到的法院正常送达的纸质的判决书，上面是没有加盖法院公章的，只有一个类似于蓝色的“与原件核对一致”的小方章，没有公章。
Defense attorney He Zhijuan explained that during the defense process, the second-instance attorney accessed a case file labeled as the main volume, not an auxiliary volume, but marked as "Volume Zero." This "Volume Zero" contained extensive information indicating direct intervention in the case's outcome by the Guangxi High Court. The creation of this volume was based on an internal reporting system for significant cases at the Guangxi High Court, detailing discussions by the first-instance collegial panel and the presiding judge relaying the High Court judge's "guidance" on the case. For instance, one section of the file indicated that the first-instance presiding judge received a call from a "guidance" judge named Lei from the High Court, who officially communicated the court's decision on the case, a decision that had been overseen personally by Vice-President Chen after being reported by Presiding Judge Wu. The defense learned that the second-instance presiding judge was this very "guidance" judge. Moreover, the file revealed instances such as the first-instance court believing a defendant did not commit fraud, yet the High Court insisted on a guilty verdict after the prosecution had pressed charges, leading to a conviction for fraud. In another instance, the defendant, Huang Wei, involved in a civil loan dispute, was forcefully convicted of fraud while a civil lawsuit was pending, despite the first-instance court believing that at least 700,000 yuan should not be deemed fraudulent; however, the High Court intervened, insisting that since the other 1.3 million yuan was determined, the 700,000 yuan must also be affirmed, ultimately adding another 700,000 yuan to his sentence. Furthermore, when the second-instance defense attorney requested that the "guidance" judge, Judge Lei, recuse himself, he nominally did so, but his replacement, a new judge, rendered a verdict without calling the defendant to court or holding a trial. This same "guidance" judge had nearly processed the hearings perfunctorily, questioning eight individuals in one day, with the shortest interrogation lasting only five minutes. These signs indicate that the first-instance judgment was effectively decided by the second-instance court, with the second-instance court merely fulfilling procedural formalities. Finally, the defense attorney found that some attorneys in the first-instance received the officially delivered judgment papers without the court's seal, only bearing a blue stamp stating "consistent with the original," lacking any official seal.
4、“联席会议”与“副卷门”——内蒙刘淑琴案与河南郑金财案｜4. "Joint Meetings" and "Auxiliary Volume" Cases — Inner Mongolia's Liu Shuqin Case and Henan's Zheng Jincai Case
内蒙的刘淑琴案件，其背后问题的出处是省高院组织三级法院搞的联席会议。联席会议的纪要之所以会到律师手里，是因为二审法院的书记员在案件尚未订卷时，将散件材料刻成光盘交给了律师。律师通过阅卷发现了案件的最大问题：一个基层法院审理的案件，在呈报到内蒙自治区高院时，高院的行政厅长直接参与了会议，并影响了案件的定性。下面两级法院的意见是刘淑琴案不构成涉黑，涉黑的四个特征哪一个都不构成，但自治区高院的厅长却说：“不定黑的话财产怎么没收”，为了将财产定性为黑，而直接通过会议纪要进行了指示。在二审时，这一信息被曝光，导致案件改变管辖。最终，涉案的8个人中，5人被判无罪。主持人袭祥栋根据其在山东诸城法院阅卷时的办案经历介绍，这类扫黑除恶的案件，大概率都是由高院来决定是否定性为涉黑。基层法院审理的涉黑案件都会呈报到高院，由高院来把关定性。
The Liu Xueqin case from Inner Mongolia stemmed from a joint meeting organized by the provincial high court involving three levels of courts. The meeting minutes ended up in the hands of lawyers because the second-instance court's clerk burned the scattered materials onto a CD before the files were bound. Through case file review, lawyers identified a major issue: the administrative director of the Inner Mongolia High Court directly participated in the meeting and influenced the case's classification. The opinion of the lower two levels of courts was that Liu Shuqin's case did not constitute involvement in organized crime, as it did not meet any of the four characteristics of such crimes. However, the director of the autonomous region's high court stated, "If it's not classified as organized crime, how can we seize the property?" leading to a direct instruction via meeting minutes to classify the property as related to organized crime. When this information was exposed during the second-instance, it led to a change in jurisdiction. Ultimately, out of eight people involved, five were acquitted. The host Xi Xiangdong, based on his experience reviewing files at the Shandong Zhucheng Court, noted that cases involving crackdowns on gang crimes are likely decided by the high court, which oversees and determines the nature of cases handled by lower courts.
河南的郑金财案件，二审上诉后律师前往阅卷，在主审法官和书记员都在场的情况下允许律师拍卷，却未发现里面就夹着的内卷被一块儿拍出来了。根据内卷，本案开完庭，一审的三个审理法官即到郑州中院去汇报案件的事实和证据，中院对于三个罪名的每一起事实都做了相应的指示。对于挪用资金这一罪名，上级法院的意见是不构成犯罪，基层法院采纳了这个意见，但另外两起罪名在汇报完后，审委会并没有按照上级法院的意思重新查明或补充证据，直接判了两罪20年。这起案件被爆出来后，家属和律师都要求改变管辖，目前尚未得到回应。
In the Zheng Jincai case from Henan, after the appeal to the second-instance, lawyers were allowed to take photos of the files in the presence of the presiding judge and clerk, inadvertently capturing the internal documents. According to these internal documents, after the court session ended, the three judges from the first-instance immediately reported the case facts and evidence to the Zhengzhou Intermediate Court, which provided directions for each of the three charges. For the charge of misappropriation of funds, the higher court concluded that it did not constitute a crime, and the lower court adopted this view. However, for the other two charges, after the report, the judicial committee did not re-examine or supplement the evidence as suggested by the higher court but directly sentenced for two crimes, totaling 20 years. After this case was exposed, both the family and the lawyer requested a change in jurisdiction, which has yet to be responded to.
此外，据主持人袭祥栋回忆，河南某案，写判决书的法官出于种种原因对于判决结果极为不服气，甚至可能根本就不想再当法官了。因为在其判决书上赫然写道 “经本案审委会讨论决定并报周口市中级人民法院内审决定”。
Additionally, host Xi Xiangdong recalled a case in Henan where the judge writing the verdict was extremely dissatisfied with the decision, to the point of possibly not wanting to continue as a judge. This was evident because the verdict explicitly stated, "After discussion by the case review committee, the decision has been reported internally to the Zhoukou Intermediate People's Court for review."
5、一审提前向上汇报不存在被害人的集资诈骗案——重庆袁山东案｜5. First-Instance Reporting of a Nonexistent Victim in a Fundraising Fraud Case — Chongqing's Yuan Shandong Case
根据本案的辩护律师张庆方律师的介绍，由于当下社会经济领域存在大量债务链条无法得到有效解决，再加上曾有化解自身债务危机的经验，本案被告人袁山东创建了一家解债公司。该公司按其设计的解债模式经营并没有出现任何亏损，却被重庆渝中区公安强行认定为集资诈骗。然而，本案却根本不存在“被害人”，因为参与解债的债事人均未报案，在得知公司被查后积极向渝中区公安及重庆五中院反映情况并要求出庭，债事人表示公安介入之前与公司的合同执行的很好。本案一审判决被告人袁山东无期徒刑，二审辩护律师介入后指出本案诸多违法操作，譬如起诉书严重违法压根没有列明被害人名单。针对此种情况，一审法院未退回，二审法院本应依法予以纠正。但二审强行的开庭拒不纠正，究其原因，则是本案一审此前就已经汇报给过重庆高院，高院刑二庭庭长刘桂华已经实质性地给出意见了，因此即便发现很多严重的问题，最后还是强行的维持。
Defense attorney Zhang Qingfang introduced this case, noting that due to unresolved extensive debt chains in the current economic field and previous experience in resolving his own debt crisis, the defendant Yuan Shandong established a debt resolution company. Operating according to its designed model, the company did not incur losses; however, it was forcibly classified as fundraising fraud by the Chongqing Yuzhong District Public Security. Moreover, there were no actual "victims" in this case, as no creditors involved in the debt resolution had filed complaints, and they had reported satisfactory contract execution with the company before the police intervention. In the first trial, Yuan Shandong was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defense attorney for the second trial pointed out multiple illegal actions, such as the indictment severely violating legal norms by not listing any victims. Despite these issues, the first-instance court did not send the case back, and the second-instance court should have legally corrected this but refused to do so, proceeding with the trial. This was because the case had been reported to the Chongqing Higher Court before the first trial, and Liu Guihua, the presiding judge of the criminal division of the higher court, had already substantively expressed opinions, thus forcefully maintaining the verdict despite significant issues.
02 两审终审制的公平价值指向｜02 The Fair Value Orientation of the two-instance final judgment system
两审终身制的背后是法院审级制度的公平价值导向。对此，张庆方律师指出，法院审判的审级体系不同于公安与检察系统的设计。公安和检察院两家之间，检察院可以指挥警察，全世界都是这样。在西方，也存在检察官是“一竿子到底”的，一个案子从基层一直打到最高法院，可以是一个检察官负责到底，因为没有必要再换检察官，这样是为了精简一体化讲究效率。换一个检察官或承办人，就可能会漏掉很多信息，增加很多成本。所以从侦查到控诉，他们讲究的是效率优先，要节省司法资源。但是审判却一定要讲审级制，因为审判最终决定的是人家的自由和财产，所以一定要公平优先，因此就要实行审级制。
The two-instance final judgment system is fundamentally anchored in the fair value orientation of the court's hierarchical structure. Lawyer Zhang Qingfang points out that the judiciary's tiered system is distinct from the designs of the public security and prosecution systems. In this arrangement, prosecutors can direct police activities globally. In the West, prosecutors often handle a case from the grassroots all the way to the Supreme Court, managing it throughout to streamline processes and enhance efficiency. Switching prosecutors or case handlers could lead to information loss and increased costs. Therefore, from investigation to prosecution, efficiency is prioritized to conserve judicial resources. However, adjudication must adhere to a tiered system because it ultimately affects individuals' freedom and property, thus necessitating a priority on fairness.
针对我国现行的两审终审制，张庆方律师从比较法与古今对比的视角提出，绝大部分法治国家，比如欧美，都是三审终审制。法国是两审终审，但是他们的两审终审程序更繁琐。对于重罪10年以上的案件，他们一审就要有几个法官、几个陪审员参审员，加起来十几个，二审又要换几个法官和陪审员，加起来十几个人，他们的程序保障是非常严格的，所以还是能够保证公平的。中国从秦汉开始，审级制与政权的层级是结合在一起的。从秦汉以来，不是四审终审，就是五审终审，甚至许多朝代都没有严格的上诉期的规定，因为中国的刑事司法更讲究实质公平，以儒家思想建立起来的文官制度强调“服判”，民众不服就继续审。譬如州县一审法院判了以后，老百姓一时没有上诉，不管说一年还是两年，他不服了还会审；甚至在州县不服，到道、省里边审，再不服还可以到刑部，刑部不行，还可以到朝廷，真冤可能皇上都要接待，强调就是这种实质性的公平。如今两审终审强调效率，节省司法资源的同时，无形中就忽略了对公平的保护。
Regarding the current two-instance final judgment system in China, Lawyer Zhang Qingfang presents a comparative perspective of law and historical contexts, noting that the majority of legal nations, such as those in Europe and America, employ a three-instance system. France uses a two-instance final judgment system, but their procedures are more complex. For serious crimes with sentences of over ten years, their first instance involves several judges and jurors, totaling a dozen or so people, and the second instance changes to a different set of judges and jurors, again adding up to a dozen, ensuring rigorous procedural safeguards and thus fairness. Since the Qin and Han dynasties, China has integrated the hierarchical levels of judicial systems with political power. From those times, China has not had a system with fewer than four or five instances, and many dynasties lacked strict regulations for appeal periods because Chinese criminal justice has emphasized substantive fairness, established through Confucian ideals in the bureaucratic system that encourages compliance with judgments. For instance, if local people did not appeal immediately after a county court ruling, whether within one or two years, they could still appeal; even if not satisfied at the county level, they could appeal further to the provincial or even the imperial courts, with the emperor sometimes personally receiving truly grievous cases, highlighting this commitment to substantive fairness. Today, the emphasis on efficiency and judicial resource conservation in the two-instance final judgment system inadvertently undermines the protection of fairness.
03 两审终审制遭到冲击的原因｜03 Reasons for the Impact on the two-instance final judgment system
当下，根据我国的《宪法》以及《刑事诉讼法》《人民法院组织法》等法律的明确规定，两审终审制度是我国刑事诉讼的基本原则、基本制度，但司法实践中两审终审制遭到冲击则已然是不争的事实。纠其背后的原因，张雪峰律师指出，《关于规范上下级人民法院审判业务关系的若干指导意见》（2010年第61号文）实际上对我们人民法院组织法以及宪法规定的上下级人民法院的指导关系进行了一点扩充，也就是在以前监督的基础上，又加了两个字“指导”，也就是最高人民法院监督指导地方各级人民法院和专门人民法院的审判工作，上级人民法院也是监督指导下级人民法院的审判业务工作。这就直接导致了律师现实办案的过程中，包括上下级人民法院的内请制度在内，上级法院对下级人民法院审判过程中的指导脱离了真正意义上监督的范围，进行了对具体个案的指导。刘征律师指出，司法机关不断地自我扩权是扭曲上级法院监督与二审终审制的一个重要原因。自1955年一届全国人大常委会十七次会议通过《关于解释法律问题的决议》到2015年立法法最高法和最高检的司法解释权予以追认，司法实践中两高对自我行为找“理由”进行法律解释，从而扭曲了上级法院对下级法院监督的途径和空间，也扭曲了两审终审制。
Currently, according to China's Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Law, and the People's Courts Organization Law, the two-instance final judgment system is a fundamental principle and system of our criminal proceedings. However, its impact in judicial practice is an undeniable reality. Lawyer Zhang Xuefeng points out that the "Several Guiding Opinions on Regulating the Judicial Business Relations Between Higher and Lower People's Courts" (Document No. 61 of 2010) actually expanded the supervisory relationship between higher and lower courts as outlined in our court organization laws and the Constitution. Previously based on supervision, it now includes "guidance," meaning the Supreme People's Court supervises and guides the adjudicative work of local and specialized courts at all levels. This expansion has led to higher courts' guidance in lower courts' trial processes deviating from true supervision, influencing specific cases directly. Lawyer Liu Zheng notes that the continual self-empowerment of judicial organs is a significant reason distorting the supervision of higher courts over lower courts and the two-instance final judgment system. From the Seventeenth Session of the Standing Committee of the First National People's Congress in 1955, which passed the "Resolution on Legal Interpretation Issues," to the recognition of the Supreme Court and Supreme Procuratorate's legal interpretation powers by the Legislation Law in 2015, the judicial practice of the highest courts seeking "reasons" for their actions has distorted the supervisory path and space of higher courts over lower courts, thereby warping the two-instance final judgment system.
04 两审终审制遭到破坏的危害｜The Harms of Dismantling the Two-Instance Final Judgment System
对于司法实践中两审终审制“风雨飘摇”的现状，参与研讨的各位律师结合自身办案经验讨论了其可能造成的危害。张雪峰律师指出，当下的内审、请示报告制度，第一、直接导致了一审法院对案件独立审判权的丧失，将辩护人跟上诉人享有的上诉权利完全架空了。同时，也导致宪法、人民法院组织法以及刑诉法规定的两审终审制度的虚化。第二、剥夺了二审时候上诉人跟辩护人的回避权。因为一审的过程中，有上级法院的法官作为“影子合议庭”参与案件，律师无法对他们提出回避。第三、虽然刑事诉讼法规定的是以开庭为原则，不开庭为例外，但是如果一审法院审判的过程中，二审法院不管通过哪种形式对具体个案进行监督的话，在二审法院开庭的概率就更小了，导致二审法院最终的纠错功能丧失，二审法院的真正的合议庭不能系统地对一审法院认定的事实与证据进行全面的梳理，直接导致冤假错案更多的发生。第四、二审虚化之后，更多上诉人的权利无法得到救济。甚至存在着利用内卷制度，变相剥夺当事人的这些合法财产的乱象。
Regarding the turbulent state of the two-instance final judgment system in judicial practice, the participating lawyers, drawing on their personal case experience, discussed the potential harms. Lawyer Zhang Xuefeng pointed out the immediate consequences of the current internal review and request-report system: first, it directly results in the loss of the first-instance courts' independent judicial authority, effectively nullifying the appellate and defense rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Organization Law of the People's Courts, and the Criminal Procedure Law. Second, it deprives appellants and defense attorneys of their right to challenge judges during the second instance, as judges from higher courts participate as "shadow panels" in the case proceedings, making it impossible for lawyers to request their recusal. Third, although the Criminal Procedure Law states that hearings are the rule and non-hearings the exception, if first-instance courts are supervised in any form during their proceedings, it significantly reduces the likelihood of hearings in the second-instance courts, leading to a loss of their error-correction function. The real panels in the second-instance courts are unable to thoroughly reevaluate the facts and evidence determined by the first-instance courts, directly leading to more wrongful or mistaken judgments. Fourth, the dilution of the second-instance process means that more appellants are unable to receive redress, with even legitimate properties of individuals being stripped away under the guise of “auxiliary dossier” system.
刘征律师同意张雪峰律师的看法，提出我国的法律明确规定的是两审终审制，而一个最简单的道理就是没有救济就没有权利。上级法院直接参与甚至定一审判决结果，则当事人的上诉权得不到保障，丧失了救济的一个机会。同时，在现状下，辩护律师即便能够说服审理法官，也存在说服不了“影子法官”的情况。此外，两审终审制遭到破坏将导致社会维稳的压力增大，因为老百姓在这种情况下的唯一的救济的途径就是“告御状”，导致每逢重大的会议、重大的节日、重大的活动，维稳成本开支增大，浪费社会的各种的资源。
Lawyer Liu Zheng agrees with Zhang Xuefeng's observations, emphasizing that our laws clearly define the two-instance final judgment system, and a simple truth prevails: without recourse, there are no rights. When higher courts directly intervene or predetermine the outcomes of first-instance judgments, it deprives individuals of their appeal rights and a chance for relief. Additionally, under the current circumstances, even if defense attorneys can persuade the trial judges, they might not convince the "shadow judges." Moreover, the destruction of the two-instance final judgment system escalates societal pressures to maintain stability, as the public's only recourse becomes filing petitions, which inflates the costs of maintaining order during significant events, thereby wasting various societal resources.
何智娟律师表示，《关于建立健全防范冤假错案的意见》规定的很明确，下级法院不能就事实和证据请示上级法院。因为实体要经过一个很完整的程序，二审法官都不去庭审，都不去经历非法证据排除程序，就听一个汇报，势必导致错案冤案的发生。
Lawyer He Zhijuan points out that the regulations for preventing wrongful and mistaken cases are explicit: lower courts must not seek guidance on facts and evidence from higher courts. Since the process should be thoroughly adhered to, second-instance judges neither attend the hearings nor go through the illegal evidence exclusion process but merely listen to a report, inevitably leading to wrongful or mistaken judgments.
张庆方律师提出，我国不像大部分国家一样搞三审终审，就两审终审还要打折扣，事实上搞成一审终审，则连基本的程序正义都没有了。更何况中国的传统文化中最强调政治道德，“唯天下至诚，方能经纶天下之大经，立天下之大本”，儒家文化建立起来的政治制度一定要让老百姓服气，当官的要做诚信的代表。当事人遇到刑事案子经济本就困难，甚至工作都没有了，公司都要都停了，但却不去搞极端的方式，而是通过正常途径解决问题，相信上级法院比下级法院要公正，上级法院比下级法院要有水平。但如今采取这样一种秘密的方式，在当事人上诉之前就已经打破了这个幻想，这让我们整个社会对司法制度产生了一种严重的不信任。此外，权利泛化、集体决定也容易使得法官的道德失范，不负责任，追求权力的快感与物质利益，滋生司法腐败，甚至法官自身的心理负担越来越重，也同时导致社会对法官这个职业失去尊重。
Lawyer Zhang Qingfang notes that unlike most countries that employ a three-instance final judgment system, China's system has been reduced in practice to what amounts to a single-instance final judgment, thereby losing even the basic procedural justice. Moreover, China's traditional culture, which heavily emphasizes political morality, dictates that the public must genuinely trust the integrity of the ruling officials. When individuals facing criminal charges are already economically disadvantaged, losing even their jobs, and find their businesses halted, they should not have to resort to extreme measures but should trust that higher courts are more just and competent than lower courts. However, the secretive maneuvers before an appeal shatter this trust, severely damaging public faith in the judicial system. Furthermore, the generalization of rights and collective decision-making can lead to moral decay among judges, irresponsibility, and a pursuit of power and material gains, fostering judicial corruption and increasing the psychological burden on judges, ultimately leading to a loss of respect for the judiciary within society.
05 问题的化解｜Resolving the Issue
针对目前司法现状该如何化解，张雪峰律师提出法院的权力扩权，对被告人还有对辩护律师的辩护权的压缩是非常严重的，在监督关系之外又有了我们指导、内审、内核这些制度之后，二审很难在短时间之内有个很好的改变。山东泰安案目前也得到了山东高院的关注，作为在刑辩一线的这些律师，真切的希望二审终审制度真正的落到实处。
In addressing the current judicial situation, Lawyer Zhang Xuefeng suggests that the expansion of court powers and the significant suppression of the rights of defendants and defense attorneys are serious issues. After the introduction of our directives, internal audits, and core reviews beyond supervisory relationships, significant changes in the second instance are difficult to achieve quickly. The Tai'an case in Shandong has also drawn the attention of the Shandong High Court. As lawyers on the frontline of criminal defense, there is a sincere hope that the two-instance final judgment system will be fully implemented.
刘征律师提出了三点想法。第一，张磊律师曾表示“决策权在哪，辩护权就要跟到哪”，也即仅仅说服法官是远远不够的，尤其是在有影响力的大案中。第二，何兵老师之前做过详细的论证，即基层法院归地方，中院以上起码是要归省级。比如说就拿山东省来举例，一个山东省，设上5个或者6个中级人民法院，然后有一个山东省高院，中院的管辖范围可以每隔几年调整，或者是法官每隔几年互相调动。虽然没有实践过，但可能也是一种好的尝试。第三，就是庆方老师一直做的监督权，要保证社会对司法有一个监督的权利。
Lawyer Liu Zheng offers three points of view. First, as Lawyer Zhang Lei has said, "Where the decision-making power lies, the defense must follow." Simply persuading the judge is far from sufficient, especially in influential major cases. Second, Professor He Bing has argued that lower courts should be governed locally, and courts at the middle level and above should at least be provincial. For example, in Shandong province, setting up five or six intermediate people's courts and a Shandong High Court, with the jurisdiction of the middle courts adjustable every few years, or judges being rotated every few years, might be a good trial. Third, as Professor (Zhang) Qingfang continuously advocates, there must be a right to oversee the judiciary to ensure the public can monitor judicial actions.
何智娟律师表示，有一个书记员说得很实在，他说其实二审法院干预一审判决的情况很正常，确实他们也已经习以为常了，对他们内部来讲，没有任何特别之处。但是他们也要反思自己的工作，唯一需要反思的地方就是太粗心了，怎么把这个卷让律师给阅到了。这体现出了认知的割裂，许多问题其实凭常识就可以解决。
Lawyer He Zhijuan shares an anecdote from a court clerk who candidly mentioned that it's quite normal for second-instance courts to intervene in first-instance decisions, a practice they have grown accustomed to. Internally, there is nothing unusual about it. However, they need to reflect on their work practices, particularly how carelessly they allowed a lawyer to access the files. This reveals a cognitive disconnect, where many issues could be resolved with common sense.
张庆方律师提出，针对司法乱象，首先刑辩律师要盯着不放，这涉及到我们对这个职业还有没有信心。为了我们的职业荣誉，为了我们的职业尊严，我们也要把这个事情揪住不放。其次，针对重大复杂的、敏感性的一审确实驾驭不了的案件，比如说一审当时检察院起诉到基层法院来却发现驾驭不了，则申请提级就足以解决，既符合程序又能够保证公正，也能够让当事人和律师都满意。第三、对于破坏二审终审的司法人员，可以论证其刑事责任，轻则构成徇私枉法罪，重则是颠覆国家政权罪。以重大责任事故罪为例，对于普通的企业强令工人冒险作业都要构成犯罪，则上级法院领导强令下级法院审判则也要构成犯罪，因为对国家机关、对人民法院的要求应该更为严格。对于检察院来说，作为法律监督机关，对于高院这种强令下级法院“冒险作业”的行为自然应当监督。
Lawyer Zhang Qingfang argues that, to address judicial chaos, criminal defense lawyers must remain vigilant, reflecting our confidence in the profession. For the sake of our professional honor and dignity, we must firmly address this issue. For significant, complex cases that are unmanageable at first instance, elevating the trial ensures procedural correctness, justice, and satisfaction for both clients and lawyers. Secondly, for judicial personnel who undermine the finality of second-instance judgments, their criminal liability should be assessed, ranging from misconduct to subverting state power. For example, just as commanding workers to undertake hazardous tasks constitutes a crime in ordinary enterprises, so too should higher court directives forcing lower courts to make risky judgments be criminal, given the stricter standards expected of state organs and courts. The prosecutorial office, as a legal supervisory body, must oversee such high court directives to lower courts to undertake risky actions.