"Major Crimes Unit" Prequel Legal Highlights: Analysis of Differences Between Plot Elements in Film and Television Works and Real-Life Case Handling Procedures
Recently, the prequel to the classic crime investigation drama "Serious Crime Unit Six" has become a focal point of discussion among viewers. Many audiences, while binge-watching the show, have developed a strong interest in the investigation procedures, interrogation techniques, and evidence collection methods depicted in the series. However, for dramatic effect, film and television works often artisticize real-life legal procedures. As a practicing lawyer, I believe it is necessary to clarify, from a professional perspective, the differences between the plotlines in the show and actual legal regulations, helping everyone gain a more accurate understanding of China's criminal justice procedures.
The Boundaries of Power During the Investigation Stage: Artistic Exaggeration versus Real-World Constraints
The protagonist in the drama often demonstrates extraordinary flexibility during investigations, such as entering a suspect's residence without a search warrant or employing aggressive psychological tactics during interrogations. While these plot elements enhance entertainment value, in reality, every action taken by investigative authorities is strictly governed by the Criminal Procedure Law.
According to Article 138 of the Criminal Procedure Law, when conducting a search, a search warrant must be presented to the person being searched. Only during the execution of an arrest or detention, in case of an emergency, may a search be conducted without a separate search warrant. This exception clause is strictly limited in practice and is not as arbitrary as depicted in television dramas.
In addition, the procedures for interrogating criminal suspects are also clearly regulated. The law requires that investigators, during interrogation, should first ask the suspect whether they have committed a crime, allow them to state the circumstances of guilt or provide a defense of innocence, and then pose questions to them. The entire process should be documented in an interrogation record, which the suspect must review for accuracy and then sign to confirm. In practice, lawyers frequently encounter clients reporting various issues during interrogation, but evidence ultimately admissible in court must pass the test of procedural legality.
Evidence Rules: The Strict Threshold from Screen to Courtroom
What often captivates audiences in crime dramas is the process of uncovering evidence—whether it's a tiny fiber, a fingerprint, or a witness's testimony—each capable of advancing the case at a critical moment. Yet the real-world rules of evidence are far more intricate than what's portrayed on screen.
Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that any material that can be used to prove the facts of a case constitutes evidence. However, evidence must be verified to be true before it can serve as the basis for adjudication. This requirement implies that even if evidence is obtained during the investigation stage, if there are defects in the collection procedures, it may still be excluded at the trial stage.
For example, statements obtained from suspects through informal conversations, which are common in TV dramas, may not be admissible as evidence in reality due to the lack of lawful interrogation procedures. The Supreme People's Court's interpretation on the application of the Criminal Procedure Law explicitly stipulates that physical evidence and documentary evidence collected in violation of statutory procedures, which may seriously affect judicial fairness, should be corrected or reasonably explained; if correction or reasonable explanation is not possible, such evidence should be excluded.
In defense work, lawyers often find that examining the legality of evidence is a crucial breakthrough point. Clients and their families frequently feel despair over certain unfavorable evidence, but in reality, if there were procedural violations during the evidence collection process, such evidence may be lawfully excluded, thereby affecting the overall direction of the case.
Detention Periods and Compulsory Measures: Overlooked Legal Details
Characters in the drama are often able to meet with a lawyer retained by their family shortly after being brought to a public security organ, or are released after a certain period of time. This handling of the timeline is typically compressed; in reality, the application and duration of compulsory measures are strictly regulated by law.
Article 89 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that if a public security organ believes that a detained person needs to be arrested, it shall submit a request to the People's Procuratorate for review and approval within three days after the detention. Under special circumstances, the time for submitting the request for review and approval may be extended by one to four days. For major suspects who commit crimes by roaming from place to place, repeatedly, or in groups, the time for submitting the request for review and approval may be extended to thirty days.
Regarding lawyer visits, the law clearly stipulates that defense lawyers may meet and correspond with criminal suspects or defendants in custody. Except for cases involving crimes endangering national security, terrorist activities, and particularly serious bribery offenses, in other cases, when a lawyer requests a meeting by presenting their lawyer's practicing certificate, a certification from the law firm, and a power of attorney or a legal aid letter, the detention center shall arrange the meeting promptly, and in no case later than forty-eight hours.
These regulations directly concern the lawful rights and interests of the parties involved. After receiving a commission from the family, the lawyer's primary task is to intervene as soon as possible to determine what compulsory measures have been taken against the client, where they are being detained, and whether the statutory time limit has been exceeded. Many family members are unfamiliar with the case-handling procedures and often find themselves at a loss after the client is detained, missing the optimal window to apply for a change of compulsory measures.
Trial Procedure: From Piecing Together Clues to Evidentiary Confrontation
The narrative focus of crime investigation dramas is usually on the process of solving the case, with courtroom proceedings often simplified or omitted. However, the final outcome of a criminal case is determined in court through the confrontation between prosecution and defense, rather than by the unilateral determination during the investigation phase.
According to the Criminal Procedure Law, during court proceedings, all facts and evidence related to conviction and sentencing shall be investigated and debated. The public prosecutor and defense counsel shall present physical evidence to the court for the parties to identify, and shall read aloud in court the written records of testimony from witnesses who are not present, expert opinions, inspection records, and other documents used as evidence.
The evidence examination phase during court proceedings is where defense lawyers play a crucial role. Attorneys must raise objections regarding the objectivity, relevance, and legality of evidence, and challenge the completeness of the evidentiary chain. This professional confrontation goes far beyond the simple courtroom face-offs depicted in films and television dramas; it demands profound legal expertise and extensive practical experience.
In recent years, as the reform of the trial-centered criminal procedure system has continued to deepen, the degree of substantiveness in courtroom proceedings has increasingly improved. The implementation of systems such as witnesses testifying in court and the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence has broadened the space for lawyers' defense during trials. For audiences seeking to understand criminal justice, it is advisable to pay more attention to public reports of real courtroom proceedings rather than relying solely on artistically dramatized plots.
Conclusion: Watch dramas rationally and protect your rights in accordance with the law.
The success of the "Heavy Case Unit Six" series reflects, to some extent, the public's attention to the criminal justice system. However, the function of film and television dramas is entertainment and artistic expression, not legal education materials. While enjoying the plot, viewers should maintain rational awareness and not equate dramatic storylines with real legal procedures.
For ordinary citizens, understanding the basic criminal legal procedures helps in responding appropriately when encountering legal issues. Whether as a suspect, defendant, or their family members, seeking timely assistance from professional lawyers is the most effective way to protect their legitimate rights and interests. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long been dedicated to legal services in the field of criminal defense, boasting a team of experienced lawyers who can provide clients with full-process legal support from the investigation stage to the trial stage. If you or your relatives or friends are facing criminal legal issues, please feel free to contact us for professional legal advice.
