The common practice of trying all joint crimes together fails to meet the complex and evolving demands of judicial practice, necessitating the adoption of split trials for certain cases. Empirical research reveals several practical issues with split trials, including the absence of unified criteria for splitting cases, ambiguity regarding the authority to decide on a split, inadequate protection of the defendant’s right to cross-examination, and the risk that trials in subsequent cases may become perfunctory. To address these problems, the principles of exceptional application, rights protection and separation of prosecution and adjudication should be upheld. The criteria for applying split trials should be refined based on considerations such as enhancing procedural efficiency, ascertaining facts, safeguarding defendants’ litigation rights, and ensuring appropriate conviction and sentencing. A formal, litigation-based procedure for splitting cases should be established, which clearly vests the decision-making power in the judicial authorities and grants parties and their defenders the right to apply for or object to a split. Legislation should be enacted to realize the defendant’s right to cross-examination, specifying the methods and procedural safeguards for cross-examining the confessions of other co-defendants in split trials. It should be clarified that a prior judgment in a split trial holds only reference value for subsequent cases, and the substantive nature of court hearings should be reinforced by using different judicial panels.