The court trial is a key link in the trial of a case, and an important occasion for judges and parties to seek justice. In my work, the author has effectively standardized the court trial through the following four aspects, and achieved good results: clarifying the review elements, standardizing the trial standard, element trial is a simplified trial method that focuses on the case elements and making judgment documents. My approach is to extend the element trial to the element trial. Before court, cases are divided into simple cases and complex cases through review of papers. Simple cases use element based court trials. Specifically, first of all, it is necessary to summarize the elements of common facts in similar cases, solidify them, and prepare a corresponding "Table of Case Facts", which is filled out by the parties before the court to clarify the contentious points. For example, in information disclosure cases, the time and method for the parties to file an information disclosure application, the content of the information disclosure application, the content of the information disclosure notice, and the time, delivery time, and method for making the information disclosure notice are fixed, while the trial focuses on the controversial matters in order to provide evidence and cross-examine, and improve the rate of court authentication and court adjudication. For complex cases, relatively complete and sufficient pre-trial preparation procedures such as pre-trial meetings and evidence exchange are used to identify the focus of disputes between both parties and standardize and improve the efficiency of the trial. In order to achieve the separation of complexity and simplicity, and improve trial efficiency on the basis of ensuring the quality of case trials. Adhere to the court trial center and optimize the trial process. When hearing administrative cases, judges should not only summarize and grasp the focus of disputes between the parties in general, but also review the authority basis, factual evidence, applicable laws, and legal procedures of administrative actions based on the litigation requests of the parties, and follow clear procedural ideas to promote in-depth progress at all levels. In the control of court proceedings, it is necessary to clarify that the court proceedings are not static. Judges can flexibly use the court proceedings according to the specific circumstances of the case, adopt a combination of questioning and pleading, and conduct court investigations and court debates in a combined manner. This should be done in a way that is both complex and simple. For example, when our court was handling an administrative case related to housing expropriation, in order to ensure an understanding and grasp of the actual situation of the person being expropriated, members of the collegial panel went to the expropriation site for on-site inspection, while playing the role of a preparatory court, fixing the facts and evidence that are not disputed by both parties, including the focus of dispute in the case, and making full preparations for the court trial. After a pre-trial panel, determine the case trial plan, prepare an outline for the trial, and clarify the division of labor among the members of the collegial panel. During the court trial, the controversial focus issues of the case were tried using the method of combining quality and defense, simplifying the court trial process, improving the efficiency of the court trial, further enhancing the pertinence and effectiveness of the court trial, achieving an orderly court trial process and a relaxed and relaxed court trial rhythm. Strengthening litigation guidance and pursuing substantive justice. The review of administrative actions is mainly conducted through court trials, and the characteristics of administrative litigation determine that the people's litigation ability and litigation skills are generally lower than those of administrative organs. Inappropriate subject qualifications of the plaintiff and the defendant, incorrect choice of the sued behavior, inappropriate litigation requests and reasons, incorrect understanding of the relationship between reconsideration and litigation, improper prosecution timing and time for adducing evidence, and other reasons, may lead to the loss of the substantive request for reasonable public prosecution. In this regard, when the judge judges in the middle,