The author believes that the revision of summary procedure in the new Criminal Procedure Law is mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, it changes the level of courts applying summary procedure, that is, the subject of application is changed from "people's courts" to "cases under the jurisdiction of grassroots people's courts", which excludes the possibility of applying summary procedure in other courts, and this change effectively protects the rights of defendants in cases under the jurisdiction of other courts. The second is to change the criteria for determining cases applying summary procedure, that is, from the original criteria based on the types of cases, the types of punishments that may be imposed, and the suggestions and consent of procuratorial organs to the criteria for determining the application of summary procedure from the perspectives of case facts, evidence, confessions, and whether the defendant agrees to apply it. This major change not only expands the application scope of summary procedure, but also embodies the concept of respecting and protecting human rights emphasized in the new criminal procedure law, which is an important progress in legislation. The third is to strengthen the regulation of summary procedure, limit the application of summary procedure and ensure the minimum trial justice. At the same time, the corresponding relief or error correction procedures are stipulated. Cases that do not meet the conditions for the application of summary procedure shall be changed in time. The fourth is to clarify the system that public prosecutors should appear in court. Article 2 10 (former article 175) of the new criminal procedure law stipulates: "When a case of public prosecution is tried by summary procedure, the people's procuratorate shall send personnel to attend the court." For this provision, although many grass-roots procuratorates report that it has increased the number and workload of public prosecutors appearing in court, which may waste judicial resources, the author believes that this provision is an aspect of trying to protect human rights to the maximum extent while strengthening litigation supervision and forming a typical trial procedure with the function of prosecution and defense. The provisions of the new criminal procedure law on summary procedure will have a great impact on public prosecution, which requires the procuratorial organs to actively respond and effectively solve it. In the positive response, the public prosecution department should judge the situation calmly and objectively, take countermeasures in time, seize the opportunity, and strive to open up a new pattern of public prosecution: First, make up for the lack of court supervision and save judicial resources. Previously, the Criminal Procedure Law stipulated that people's procuratorates in summary procedure cases could not send personnel to appear in court. A survey report in the Supreme People's Procuratorate in 2008 showed that the court attendance rate of the summary procedure procuratorial organs was less than 3%, and the cases applying summary procedure accounted for about 40% of the whole criminal cases. It is not in line with the law of litigation for the procuratorial organ to accuse a crime and not to appear in court to support the public prosecution. Appearing in court is an important platform to perform the function of legal supervision. A large number of public prosecution cases do not appear in court, which is not in line with the functional orientation of procuratorial organs. The new criminal procedure law is more in line with the law of litigation and solves the problems existing in judicial practice. One of the striking changes is that the people's procuratorate "can not send personnel to appear in court" in summary public prosecution cases, but now "it should send personnel to appear in court". This change has positive significance for strengthening legal supervision, strengthening power restriction and protecting rights and interests in many aspects, and also poses a challenge to procuratorial organs. In view of the fact that "taking people to court" will inevitably increase the workload of grass-roots procuratorates, the author believes that the countermeasures are to concentrate on hearing and appearing in court for public prosecution of summary procedure cases. Procuratorial organs should do a good job of connecting with courts and public security organs and establish a cooperation mechanism. Summary procedure public prosecution cases should be handled by means of relatively centralized transfer of prosecution, relatively centralized handling, relatively centralized prosecution and relatively centralized appearance in court. Cases of public prosecution shall be tried by summary procedure. After all the defendants who apply the summary procedure appear in court, they should know the situation of the defendants and inform them of their litigation rights. At the same time, the procuratorate should send prosecutors to appear in court to support the public prosecution, and at the same time conduct court debates and final statements, and at the same time pronounce sentences. Cases of the same type, similar plots and similar sentencing can also be tried centrally, so that defendants can know each other about the case and the verdict, and achieve a balanced sentencing. This is not only conducive to ensuring the realization of procedural justice in the context of a large number of public prosecution cases, but also the requirement of pursuing substantive justice, effectively improving the efficiency of applying summary procedures to transfer, review, prosecute and hear public prosecution cases, better saving judicial resources and improving judicial efficiency. Second, establish a pre-trial rapid processing mechanism. The expansion of the application scope of summary procedure will directly lead to the surge of summary procedure cases at the grassroots level. In this regard, the procuratorial organs should explore a more scientific handling mechanism to adapt to this change and try to establish a pre-trial rapid handling mechanism. First of all, in line with the principle of transferring cases from complicated to simple, we can negotiate with the public security organs to transfer cases that may be tried by summary procedure (the facts of the case are basically clear, the evidence is basically conclusive, the suspect pleads guilty and has no objection to the application of summary procedure). Cases that are not under the jurisdiction of our hospital, the files are irregular, and the evidence is false. , will not be accepted and will be returned to the public security organs. The second is to simplify the handling process. The first is to simplify the document format. "Summary program report" suggests format printing, which can greatly reduce the repetitive workload. The second is to simplify interrogation (basic information, criminal facts, confession) when handling cases. The most important thing in interrogation is to fully inform the defendant of the legal provisions applicable to summary procedure. The third is to implement a professional division of labor. It is suggested that each case-handling team coordinate their respective responsibilities and cooperate with each other. If someone is responsible for the affairs related to exchange custody and notice delivery, the case undertaker will concentrate on reviewing the facts and evidence of the case, put forward opinions on handling the case, and draft the corresponding court appearance plan. Third, actively explore the trial mode of summary procedure. By holding a joint meeting of the procuratorial and legal departments, we will communicate on the trial methods and innovation of the trial system, and reasonably standardize the reading of indictments, interrogation, cross-examination of evidence, and publication of sentencing suggestions. Read out the indictment, focusing on the facts identified and the applicable law; Simplify the interrogation link, focus on the key points of interrogation, and omit the interrogation link if there is no dispute about the facts of the case; Simplify the process of proof and cross-examination, focusing on the problems confirmed by evidence; Simplify court debates, pay attention to sentencing debates, strengthen the effects of education, assistance and legal publicity, and ensure legal procedures and substantive justice. Fourth, improve the ability to support public prosecution in court. Construct a public prosecution work pattern centered on appearing in court, and take the ability to appear in court as an important indicator to measure the comprehensive quality of prosecutors. With the implementation of the new criminal procedure law, the requirements for the prosecutor's ability to support public prosecution in court will be higher and higher. It is necessary to take targeted measures to further strengthen training, and constantly urge prosecutors to improve their professional quality and enhance their ability to support public prosecution in court through activities such as confrontation drills and proposition speeches. At the same time, it is necessary to make full use of NPC deputies, CPPCC members to attend the trial, collegiate panel to comment on the feedback, trial jurors to attend the trial, etc., to improve the public prosecutor's assessment mechanism in court, so that young public prosecutors can grow rapidly. At the same time, it ensures the demand of the public prosecution department for handling vehicles and multimedia evidence, provides the necessary guarantee for the work, and improves the efficiency and quality of summary procedure cases appearing in court. The writer is the Deputy Procurator-General of Fengtai County Procuratorate in Anhui Province.