Is there still a chance to seek acquittal or dismissal after an arrest?

As a criminal defense lawyer, I once handled a case where the client had been approved for arrest by the prosecutor's office. After several days of effort, they successfully obtained bail pending trial. However, two days before the prosecutor's office decided to transfer the case to court, the client was taken back into custody.

I expressed my doubts to the prosecutor regarding whether the case constituted a crime, jurisdiction, and other aspects, believing that a dismissal of charges would be entirely appropriate. However, the prosecutor helplessly stated: "We usually prosecute once we have made an arrest."

This raises a deep question: Is the system of unified prosecution reasonable? Does it lead to the occurrence of many wrongful convictions?

To answer this question, we first need to understand the two concepts of unified prosecution and separated prosecution. Unified prosecution refers to the same prosecutor being responsible for both the review of arrest and prosecution, while separated prosecution means that different prosecutors are responsible for these two stages.

The development process of these two systems in our country is as follows:

1. Late 1970s: In the early stage of the re-establishment of the procuratorial organs, due to manpower shortages, a combined prosecution and investigation approach was adopted.
2. 1980s: Implemented the separation of prosecution and investigation to strengthen internal supervision.
3. Early 1990s: Grassroots procuratorates reinstated the unified prosecution system to improve efficiency.
4. In 1999: The Supreme People's Procuratorate officially established the separation of prosecution and investigation mechanism.
5. 2019: Comprehensive implementation of the unified case handling mechanism for capture and prosecution.
6. Recent: Some regions have started pilot programs for the separation of prosecution and investigation.

The main considerations of the unified prosecution and investigation system include: improving litigation efficiency, optimizing the use of judicial resources, and strengthening the sense of responsibility of prosecutors. In contrast, the separation of prosecution and investigation system emphasizes internal supervision and safeguards the rights of criminal suspects, but it may impact case handling efficiency.

However, as a criminal defense lawyer, I believe that the combination of prosecution and investigation does not necessarily encourage prosecutors to handle cases more cautiously. Prosecutors have to decide whether to approve the arrest within just 7 days, while also dealing with other cases and work, which can easily lead to wrongful arrests.

More seriously, under the unified prosecution system, if prosecutors find that an arrest is erroneous or that there are disputes in the case, they often choose to "grit their teeth" and prosecute instead of admitting their mistakes. This can lead to the emergence of more wrongful convictions.

According to the statistics from the Supreme People's Procuratorate in 2024, the proportion of acquittals or those not held criminally responsible is only 0.03%, and it is showing a downward trend year by year. The total number of non-prosecution after arrest and acquittals after arrest only accounts for 0.27% of the total.

That's why I often stress the importance of the first 37 days of a criminal case, because once the direction of the case is deviated, it is difficult to reverse the subsequent process.

Currently, some regions are piloting the separation of prosecution and defense, which has sparked widespread discussion. As a defense attorney, I believe that the system itself is neither right nor wrong; the key lies in the people who implement the system. Simply pursuing work efficiency may lead to more wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

For the case handlers, this may only be about face, but for the parties involved, it is a matter of a lifetime. We should treat every criminal case with greater caution to ensure justice.