scholarly journals Tactics of presenting evidence by a prosecutor in a judicial investigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Elena V. Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Considerable Difficulty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Complete Independence ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
A Charge

The article deals with individual issues of the tactics of participation of the prosecutor the public prosecutor in the basis of the part of the judicial investigation in criminal cases, which is connected with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution. It is noted that at present in the matter of determining the order of examining evidence by the parties, a unified position has been formed of both theorists and practitioners. They recognize the complete independence of the parties to determine this procedure in accordance with the tactics chosen by them. At the same time, the author draws attention to the fact that theoretical and methodical works still do not pay enough attention to the content and essence of this activity of the prosecutor in court, despite their obvious importance. His activity in the judicial investigation largely depends on the importance of tactical methods of presenting evidence and the ability to apply them. If he does not have the appropriate professional baggage, he will have considerable difficulty in the adversary process. The author sets out his own position regarding the content of evidence presented by the prosecutor the public prosecutor, proposes to include a definition of the relevant concept in the terminological apparatus of science of criminal procedure law and to fix it in the criminal procedure law. A derivative of it is the definition of the notion of tactics for the presentation of evidence by the prosecutor the public prosecutor. Conclusions are formulated on the need to intensify the development of up-to-date recommendations on the tactics of presenting evidence of a charge in a judicial investigation in criminal cases on crimes certain types

Settling Criminal Cases Without a Trial

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 223-244
Author(s):  
Bert Swart
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Almost All

According to Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of any criminal charge against him. The essence of both provisions could be rephrased by saying that criminal sanctions may only be imposed on a person by an independent and impartial tribunal and only if that person has been able to defend himself against a charge during a hearing that satisfies all requirements of a fair trial.Realities, of course, are rather different. In almost all national systems of justice there is an increasing tendency to develop procedures that allow for imposing sanctions without the necessity of a criminal trial. Their main purpose is usually to relieve the system of a burden of cases with which it cannot really cope. Basically, there are two strategies to reduce the workload of courts and public prosecutors. The first is to invite the suspect to waive his right to trial in exchange for certain favours. This usually occurs in the form of an agreement between the public prosecutor and the suspect, while quite often the cooperation of the court that would have tried the case is also required. The second solution is to grant sanctioning powers to administrative bodies and to allow individual persons an appeal against their decisions to an independent and impartial tribunal.

scholarly journals Is a public procesutor's investigation more effective than a judicial investigation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1202
Author(s):  
Snežana Brkić
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Novi Sad

This paper is the result of a mini empirical research on the duration of judicial and public prosecutorial investigations before the High Court in Novi Sad. A total of 100 cases were analyzed, of which 50 cases from 2008 and 50 cases from 2015 and 2016. The first 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure code from 2001, while the other 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure Code from 2011. In order for the result to be as comparable as possible, we tried to have the same structure of criminal acts represented in both groupes. The author came to the conclusion that a prosecutorial investigation is not faster than a judicial investigation. The search for the suspect, the search for the injured party, the impediment of the lawer, the strike of the lawers, the preoccupation of the public prosecutor, etc. contributed to the somewhat longer duration of the public prosecutorial investigation.

scholarly journals «Cases of urgency» in criminal procedure law and law enforcement practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-130
Author(s):  
Elena Alekseeva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Night Time ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Court Practice

The article deals with the term «cases of urgency» which is applied in criminal procedure legislation of Russia. The content of this term is not defined in Criminal Procedure Code. For this reason in some law-enforcement situations investigators faces an issue if this particular case is a case of urgency or not. In the article the author tries to determine the essence of the term «cases of urgency» through interpretation of legal rules and analysis of investigative and court practice. Historical experience of term’s application was also considered. In the article special attention is paid to the grounds of contestation of the results of investigative measures, which were conducted in cases of urgency without court decision or in night time. Courts’ opinions regarding their legality were analyzed. On author’s opinion neither the definition of «case of urgency» nor its list should be formalized in law. Instead the author proposes focusing on standards of urgency elaborated by court practice taking into account the opinion of Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. Also the problem of reasonability of investigative measures conducting in case of urgency without court decision in criminal cases of less and middle grade is raised. Based on research the author offers recommendations for practitioners which help them to determine if any particular situation is a case of urgency or not.

"Consensus Justice" in Criminal Cases: Innovations of the Member Nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States

2021 ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Olga I. Semykina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Commonwealth Of Independent States ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Independent States ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of

The article announces the vectors of adaptation of mechanisms of private law regulation in Criminal and criminal procedure Law. Within the framework of a comparative approach, the thesis is put forward for discussion on the formation in the jurisdictions of the Member Nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States of a new model of the administration of justice in criminal cases, aimed at reaching a "consensus" between the subjects of public law relations - the defense and prosecution sides - on the "cost" of the crime and the resulting " benefit "from the consequences of "paying" such for a particular party. This model of regulation the conflict, which has a high dispositiveness for Criminal Law and criminal procedure, allows the state (represented by the bodies conducting the criminal process), in exchange for the speedy achievement of the goals of justice and procedural economy, to “propose to the “defendant” of the criminal case (suspect, accused and sometimes defendant) certain advantages. The author considers it possible to apply the definition of “consensus justice” to the model within which “contracts” of a private law nature are concluded, discussed and executed. When submitting the material, the aim was not to highlight the approaches to the corresponding transformations in all, without exception, the jurisdictions of the countries participating in the Commonwealth of Independent States integration association. The author limited the subject of comparative analysis to innovative in time and space mechanisms for regulating "consensus justice", the approbation of which is already provided for by the criminal and (or) criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Uzbekistan. The provisions and conclusions accumulated in the article reflect the position of the author, they are not indisputable and can cause discussion.

scholarly journals Mekanisme Penyimpanan dan Pemusnahan Barang Sitaan Narkotika (Studi Kasus Pada Kejaksaan Negeri Badung)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-319
Author(s):  
I Putu Krisna llham Wiantama ◽  
I Nyoman Gede Sugiartha ◽  
Ida Ayu Putu Widiati
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Public ◽  
Delegation Of Authority ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Force

There are many criminal cases of Narcotics in the jurisdiction of the Badung Prosecutor's Office, the procedure for storing confiscated objects of the State (Rupbasan) is regulated in Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code, then the destruction of confiscated Narcotics is carried out seven days after obtaining a court envoy who has permanent legal force as provisions of Law number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. However, the implementation of this law still appears to be constrained by its implementation in the field. This study aims to explain the legal rules for storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics at the Badung Public Prosecutor's Office and describing the process of storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics at the Badung District Court. This study was designed using a normative method, namely examining library materials in relation to cases through a statutory approach. The data used are primary and secondary data. Data were collected by interviewing and documentation. The results showed the legal rules for the storage of confiscated Narcotics at Kasiswa Badung, according to Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Perka BNN No. 7/2010, while for Destruction is regulated based on SE.IA Number: SE-018 / A / JA / 08/2015 dated 21 August 2015 is one of the legal bases, then the mechanism for storing and destroying confiscated Narcotics objects begins with the acceptance of delegation of authority from investigators to the public prosecutor to District Prosecutor's Office Badung by presenting the defendant and evidence to the District Prosecutor's Office Badung Badung. If the trial process has been completed and has retained legal force, the officer begins to collect and record various confiscated objects that will be destroyed, in this case divided according to the types of confiscated objects.

Problems of the legal status of the prosecutor on criminal private accusation cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
Pavel Titov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
A Charge

Introduction. Relevance of the research topic. Criminal proceedings are generally based on public law, which involves the participation of a prosecutor in criminal cases, who performs two main functions: criminal prosecution and supervision of the procedural activities of the preliminary investigation bodies. In cases of private prosecution, however, taking into account the specifics of initiating criminal prosecution, the lack of stages of initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation and the collection of the bulk of evidence by a private prosecutor, the Prosecutor cannot perform the same functions as in cases referred to public prosecution. Problem statement. Science did not use to pay much attention to the powers of the Prosecutor for criminal cases of private prosecution. Even in scientific works directly dealing with the issue, only concise norms of the criminal procedure law, without their detailed disclosure and specification, were mainly reproduced. Goals and methods. The aim of the research is to develop an optimal theoretical model of the prosecutor’s participation in criminal cases of private prosecution and to formulate a list of their powers. The work is based on the dialectical and materialistic method, which involves a comprehensive study of phenomena, their interactions being taken into account. Such methods as formal and legal, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction have also been used. Results and key conclusions. The author makes suggestions about possible theoretical models of the Prosecutor’s participation in the category of cases under consideration, points at their defects and, as a result, suggests his own conceptual model. Attention is drawn to the fact that the attorney cannot go over to the side of the prosecution and should not be granted rights attributed exclusively to the private Prosecutor: to formulate a charge, to define people to be brought to justice, to petition for reconciliation with the accused. The Prosecutor in the cases of private prosecution procedure should preserve neutrality. At the same time, their participation is intended to make up for the characteristic features of the victim, which make it difficult for the latter to defend their right for justice and to be protected from crime. The paper formulates procedural rights the Prosecutor in a private prosecution case should be provided with and gives reasons for the Prosecutor’s necessity to give an opinion on the case, disclosed to the court and the parties at the end of the judicial investigation. It is stated, that the Prosecutor for private prosecution performs functions that are neither criminal prosecution nor supervision of the investigation bodies. They exercise supervision over the legality of the actions of the participants in criminal proceedings on behalf of the defense and prosecution in order to ensure the validity of the decision.

scholarly journals Analisis Hukum Terhadap Penggabungan Dan Pemisahan Perkara Pidana Dalam Surat Dakwaan Penuntut Umum

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-368
Author(s):  
Christina Mahdalena Saragih ◽  
Sonya Airini Batubara ◽  
Martin Johan Napitupulu ◽  
Nico Iryanto Sihombing ◽  
Novita Wanrelin Gultom
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
General Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Secondary Research ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code

This article aims to analyze the consideration of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments for several criminal cases and to find out the obstacles of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments against several criminal cases. The research used is normative juridical research. With secondary research methods, namely secondary legal materials, which consist of books and articles related to research (both in the form of newspapers, magazines, journals, and other writings). The data obtained are then analyzed qualitatively by describing and describing the data and facts resulting from a research in the field with an interpretation, evaluation, and general knowledge. In the results of this study, the merger of indictments against several criminal cases is Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "Public prosecutors can merge cases and make them into one indictment". Meanwhile, for the separation of the indictment, there is Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "In the event that the Public Prosecutor receives a case file containing several criminal acts committed by several suspects which are not included in the provisions of Article 141"

scholarly journals Legacy of M. S. Strogovich and Modern Problems of Functional-Legal Construction of Criminal Pre-Trial Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-513
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Derishev
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
125Th Anniversary ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of

In November 2019, the world legal community widely celebrated the 125th anniversary of Professor M. S. Strogovich, who, according to his scientific colleagues and students, was a scientist who was “ahead of time”.This article provides a retrospective and comparative analysis of the positions of M. S. Strogovich and his colleagues on certain problems of domestic criminal proceedings, in particular its pre-trial phase, in the context of the direct influence of the scientist's scientific heritage on the development of modern criminal procedure law. The Author of the article particularly interesting views of the scientist and his participation in discussions related to defining the essence and purpose of the preliminary investigation, the implementation of the functions of preliminary investigation in relation to criminal prosecution, the problems of implementation of the principles of presumption of innocence and the adversarial nature of pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, and, finally, the General Manager of the “investigative case” in modern Russia.M. S. Strogovich consistently adhered to the idea of the need to develop and strengthen procedural guarantees of individual rights, guarantees of justice, and this can be seen in this article. Thus, defining the essence of the criminal process as a system of actions of the relevant officials and the procedural legal relations that arise in connection with them, which in itself was a serious “scientific courage” of those years, M. S. Strogovich particularly defended the position that all participants in criminal proceedings are subjects of the rights granted to them and the duties assigned to them, and they should not be considered objects of unilateral power of officials. This idea has become widespread and generally accepted as the basic definition of domestic (Soviet and Russian) criminal proceedings.The article analyzes M. S. Strogovich’s scientific steps on the conceptual turn from revolutionary-radical ideas about the construction of criminal proceedings to its classical canons and traditions of the Russian criminal process, On the basis of which the conclusion is made about the indispensable use of the scientist's legacy in modernьRussian procedural studies.The research of M. S. Strogovich’s legacy carried out in the article will fully allow to rethink the modern system of criminal proceedings in a new way, can be used as a kind of key to finding solutions to law-making and law enforcement problems, for the further development of the national science of criminal procedure law.

SOME QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURAL POWERS IMPLEMENTATION BY EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY SERVICE OF RUSSIA WHEN MAKING PROCEDURAL DECISIONS AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Александр Валентинович Черезов
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы реализации уголовно-процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений УИС в стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. В частности, рассмотрена проблема и дано определение компетенции органов дознания и предварительного следствия, предусмотренной УПК РФ. Исследован объем уголовно-процессуальных прав и обязанностей органов дознания и следствия, а также оперативных подразделений УИС в системе иных органов дознания и следствия. Проведен анализ порядка принятия решений уполномоченными должностными лицами ФСИН России при проверке сообщений о преступлениях, выражено мнение о том, что они вправе принимать только одно решение: о передаче сообщения о преступлении по подследственности и в исключительных случаях возбуждать уголовные дела в порядке, предусмотренном ст. 157 УПК РФ. Рассмотрены причины, на основании которых законодатель уменьшил полномочия оперативных подразделений ФСИН России как органа дознания. Рассмотрены актуальность применения ст. 157 УПК РФ в части возбуждения уголовных дел и проведения по ним неотложных следственных действий, а также роль начальников органов и учреждений УИС в их проведении. На основании рассмотренных проблем подведен итог о нечеткой регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений ФСИН России в уголовно-процессуальном законе и подзаконных актах на стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. The article deals with the actual problems of implementation of the criminal procedure powers of the criminal procedure authorities and institutions at the stage of criminal proceedings. In particular, we consider the problem and the definition of the competence of bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation under code of criminal procedure. The volume of criminal procedure rights and obligations of operational divisions of the criminal investigation department in the system of other bodies of inquiry and investigation is studied. The analysis of the procedure for decision-making by authorized officials of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia when checking reports of crimes is carried out. The reasons why the legislator reduced the powers of operational divisions of the Federal penitentiary service of Russia as a body of inquiry are considered. The relevance of the application of article 157 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation in terms of criminal cases and conducting urgent investigative actions on them, as well as the role of the heads of criminal investigation bodies and institutions in their conduct, were reviewed. Based on the problems discussed, the author summarizes the lack of regulation of the procedural powers of the Federal Penitentiary Service bodies and institutions in the criminal procedure law and by-laws at the stage of initiation of a criminal case.

scholarly journals On the shortcomings of the plea agreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 1020-1062
Author(s):  
Dragana Milošević
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Medium Scale ◽  
Historical Method ◽  
Scale Method ◽  
Documentary Analysis ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Prediction Strategy

The plea agreement is an institute of criminal procedure law that was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code in 2011 as one of three agreements that can be concluded by the public prosecutor and the defendant. The author points out the shortcomings of the agreement in terms of the absence of a prescribed penalty as a condition for concluding an agreement, determining the sentence without presenting evidence, with an emphasis on extenuating and aggravating circumstances, and provides suggestions on how to prevent or eliminate problems that could occur in praxis by applying valid legal solutions. In order to obtain answers to some of the above questions, a research questionnaire was created on the basis of which the author collected data from a court and public prosecutor's office in order to prove the presented hypotheses. From the methodological aspect, in addition to documentary analysis, the comparative and historical method, prediction strategy and the medium-scale method were used for the purpose of the research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document