Contents and Value of a Judicial Parting Word by Juror Chairman in Modern Russian Criminal Trial

Alexander Epikhin, Oleg Zaytsev, Andrey Mishin, Timur Mukhametshin

Özet


Russian criminal proceedings undergo numerous changes aimed at criminal proceeding efficiency improvement. The differentiation of criminal justice includes the difference of criminal procedures. Some of them simplify, while others complicate the solution of guilt (innocence) issue. The consideration of a criminal case by a court with the participation of jurors is singled out among such complicated forms of criminal proceedings. The guilt or the innocence is determined by the jury in an advisory room after the study of the evidence brought by lawyers and prosecutors. Before the meeting of jurors takes place, the law establishes the procedure of a parting word announcement by a presiding judge (a professional judge leading the process). Such a judge announcement to a jury has special requirements set by Russian criminal law procedure, the violation of which may lead to the cancellation of the sentence. In addition, the article highlights the importance of ensuring the safety of all participants of the criminal process, including the jury. In the Russian criminalistics, the use of methods is associated traditionally with pre-trial proceedings on a criminal case. However, recently there has been some interest in forensic tactics development for a court session. In this paper, they showed the feature of trial forensic method use and the peculiarity of such development mastering.


Anahtar Kelimeler


Jurymen, Parting word, Criminal case, Process, Legal proceedings, Presiding, Criminal justice, Security, Protection, Trial tactics.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)

Referanslar


Aleksandrov A. S. & Bosov A. E. (2013). Objectivity and impartiality of the parting word (the history of one examination). The magistrate judge. N 5. 21-27; Kanevsky B., Bosov A. (2013). The parting word of the presiding judge from the point of view of speech acts. Criminal law. N 2. 97 - 103.

Appeal definition of RF Supreme Court N 59-APU17-12SP issued on December 26, 2017. The document was not published. SPS Consultant Plus.

Belyaev M. V. (2017). On some ways of influencing the procedural information perception by the jurors. The Russian judge. N 5. 23 - 27.

Cassation definition of RF Supreme Court N 21-О11-15СП issued on 05.07.2011. The document was not published. SPS Consultant Plus.

Cassation definition of RF Supreme Court N 35-O11-20sp issued on July 21, 2011. The document was not published. SPS Consultant Plus.

Epikhin, A. Y. et al. (2016). Protection by the government and security support for the parties of modern criminal process in Russia: Problems and perspectives. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues Volume 19, Special Issue.

Epikhin, A. Y. et al. (2016). Protection of the Witnesses and Victims: International Legal Acts, Legislation of some States and the Modern Russian Legislation. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 2. 313-322.

Epikhin, A. Yu. & Mishin, A. V. (2018). The provision of safety for the persons facilitating criminal justice: Textbook. Kazan: Kazan Publishing House. University. 92.

Epikhin, A.Y. et al. (2016). Protection of the Witnesses and Victims: International Legal Acts, Legislation of some States and the Modern Russian Legislation. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 2. 313-322.

Epikhin, A.Y. et al. (2017). Problem of Definition of Personal Security in the Modern Russian Criminal Procedure. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 6, 1539-1545.

Judgment of the European Court of 26 March 1996 on the merits of the application N 20524/92 Doorson v. the Netherlands. § 70; Judgment of the European Court of 28 March 2002 on the merits of the applications N 47698/99 and 48115/99 Birutis and Others v. Lithuania, § 34, 35; Judgment of the European Court of 28 February 2006 on the merits of the application N 51277/99 Krasniki v. Czech Republic, § 64 – 86. Judgment of the European Court of 20 September 1993 on the merits of the application N 14647/89 Saidi v. France, § 44.

Kanevsky B. & Bosov A. (2013). The parting word of the presiding judge from the point of view of speech acts. Criminal law. N 2. 97 - 103.

Kanevsky B. & Bosov A. (2013). The parting word of the presiding judge from the point of view of speech acts. Criminal law. N 2. 97 - 103.

Resolution of RF Supreme Court Plenum No. 23 (Edited on December 22, 2015) "On the application of the norms of RF CPC regulating legal proceedings with the participation of jurors" issued on November 22, 2005. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. N 272.

The definition of RF Supreme Court N 78-О09-8сп issued on 05.03.2009. The document was not published. SPS Consultant Plus.

The review of RF Supreme Court judicial practice "The review of Judicial Collegium cassation practice on Criminal Cases of RF Supreme Court in 2004" (2005). Bulletin of RF Supreme Court. N 8.

Vedishchev N. P. (2011). The errors, allowed at the parting word by the presiding judge, as the basis for the sentence appeal. Advocate. N 5. 48 - 56.

Vladykina T. (2011). The parting word of the presiding judge. Criminal law. N 6. 75 - 83.

Yepikhin A. Yu. (2004). Preconditions to apply security measures for the trial participants. From the collection: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference "Tatishchev Readings": Actual Problems of Science and Practice. "Humanities and Education: Experience, Problems, Prospects. Togliatti. 180-183.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i4.1833

Refback'ler

  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.




Telif Hakkı (c) 2018 Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.