scholarly journals Joining a Criminal Case by a Defense Counsel in the Course of Pre-Trial Investigation

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 40-43
Author(s):  
Tatyana I. Khvenko ◽  

This article discusses the problems of a lawyer’s entry into a criminal case during the preliminary investigation, emphasizes the need for the officials of the preliminary investigation bodies to ensure the timely entry of a lawyer into a criminal case, substantiates the important role of a lawyer’s participation in the legality and legality of investigative and other procedural actions committed against the client, investigates the question of the need for the participation of a lawyer from the moment of the actual detention of a person subjected to criminal prosecution.

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Vilkova

The paper shows that ensuring access to justice is enshrined in the constitutions of most UN member states. The specificity of the Russian constitutional norm lies in the fact that ensuring access to justice for victims of crimes is imposed on the state as its duty. In criminal proceedings, this obligation is realized through the activities of the preliminary investigation bodies, the prosecutor, and the court. The author proposes measures aimed at building pre-trial proceedings that effectively ensure access to justice: refusal from the stage of initiation of a criminal case and indicating the preliminary investigation from the moment of registration of a crime report; empowering the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings, direct investigations and bring charges; expansion of judicial control in pre-trial proceedings; development of effective simplified and accelerated procedures in preliminary production; supplementing the grounds for termination of a criminal case, criminal prosecution by the inexpediency of criminal prosecution. It is shown that the introduction of digital technologies in the criminal process, including the establishment of digital interaction between state bodies and the population through a single secure digital online platform, should become an independent direction for improving pre-trial proceedings; creation of a mechanism for filing a crime report through a special online service; automatic registration of applications and determination of the direction of their movement using the capabilities of artificial intelligence; introduction of an electronic criminal case; use of semantic neural networks, computer vision, data clustering, etc. in the criminal process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 61-64
Author(s):  
Ilya S. Dikarev ◽  

The author in the article deals with the powers to change the degree and qualification of the prosecution used by the Prosecutor at the final stage of pre-trial proceedings. The author concludes that the scope of powers depends on the form of preliminary investigation determining the procedural function of the Prosecutor. The opinion that the Prosecutor after transferring the criminal case with the indictment obtains the function of criminal prosecution is critically evaluated. The author shows that the Prosecutor assumes this function only if the indictment is approved. The author’s position is supported by the need to return the opportunity to adjust the charge in the criminal case received by him with the indictment to the Prosecutor.


Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Nina Manova

Introduction: one of the most influential actors in the system of law enforcement agencies of any state, in any system of criminal proceedings, is the prosecutor; in this connection, the purpose of the work was to study his role in coordinating the activities of the bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation in the implementation of criminal prosecution. Methods: the methodological framework for the work consists of the general scientific (dialectical, systemic, structural-functional, logical, etc.) and the specific scientific (formal-legal, comparative-legal, etc.) research methods. Results: the author’s position presented in the paper is based on the analysis of the legislative regulation, the knowledge accumulated in the theory of the criminal procedure and practical experience of the coordination and personal implementation of the criminal prosecution activities by the prosecutor in the pretrial stages of the criminal process. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the role of the prosecutor as the organizer and head of the criminal prosecution carried out by the inquirer and the investigator is justified; the mistakes made in reforming the procedural position of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings are revealed; the essential components in the real model of the prosecutor’s activity that were not taken into account by the legislator are identified: the nature of the prosecutor’s relationships with other participants in the process and his key role in the implementation of criminal prosecution (his responsibility for the legality of the pre-trial criminal prosecution, and the duty to maintain the public prosecution in court).


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3B) ◽  
pp. 645-651
Author(s):  
Artem Igorevich Neryakhin ◽  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Vasily Dzhonovich Potapov ◽  
Denis N. Stacyuk ◽  
Tatiana Ivanovna Bondar

The authors study the controversial issues of termination of a criminal case (criminal prosecution) on the condition of voluntary compensation for the damage caused by the crime by the suspect (accused) during the preliminary investigation. The thesis is proved that in Russian criminal proceedings the procedure for voluntary compensation for damage caused by a crime is quite clearly regulated, and if the suspect (accused) voluntarily compensated for the property damage caused, then their actions will be evaluated within the current legal framework, when the fact of compensation for damage creates grounds for exemption from criminal liability and termination of the criminal case (criminal prosecution) in accordance with Articles 75, 76, 761, 762 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 25, 251, 28, 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Svetlana Bulatova

The author discusses relationships between the prosecution and the defense during the preliminary investigation of a criminal case. Based on the analysis of contemporary Russian criminal procedure legislation and the links between the criminal procedure theory and criminalistics, the author concludes that it is necessary to single out the following forms of relationships between the defense counsel and the investigator: cooperation and counteraction to the investigation. The author, taking into account existing theoretical views, differentiates between these two concepts using the criterion of the legality of the actions of the sides. Correspondingly, it is suggested that cooperation is the activity of the sides carried out within the framework of the criminal procedure legislation and aimed at the realization of the purpose of criminal court proceedings as stated in Art. 6 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Russian Federation. Using this as a basis, the author attempts to outline the procedural types of such interaction depending on the manner in which the defense counsel participates in proofing a criminal case. Firstly, there is a situation in which evidence is collected directly by the defense council. The author believes that in this case the investigator checks the evidence acting as an independent auditing body in the legal relationships and does not perform the function of the prosecution. Secondly, there is a procedural form of interaction when the defense counsel participates in the collection of evidence carried out by the side of the prosecution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-74
Author(s):  
Елена Папышева

This article discusses some powers of a prosecutor, his legal status in criminal procedure and administrative proceedings, the relationship between the functions of criminal prosecution and prosecutorial supervision. The author notes that at the stage of initiating a criminal case, prosecutor’s powers for criminal prosecution are exercised through supervisory activities, during which, on the facts of perpetration, he is entitled to make a reasoned decision to send the relevant materials to preliminary investigation bodies. The article analyzes prosecutor’s powers in initiating an administrative case, the legal nature of the prosecutor’s decision, which, according to the author, is not and cannot be evidence in the case (source of evidence), in contrast to the position of the courts and the prevailing judicial practice. Both processes (criminal and administrative proceedings) are based on identical principles and have similar institutions. Including for this reason, the problems of determining the status and powers of the prosecutor in exercising supervision have common roots.


Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Yuri Franciforov ◽  
Natalia Solovyova ◽  
Vladimir Shinkaruk

Introduction: the paper reveals the peculiarities of the interaction of the court with the officials for the prosecution, who have authority at the stages of initiating a criminal case and preliminary investigation. The paper reveals the types of interaction, as well as the prerequisites for the interaction efficiency between the court and the parties to criminal proceedings on the part of the prosecution, which are based on such fundamental principles of the criminal process as legality, inviolability of the individual, respect for the honor and dignity of the individual and publicity. The interaction of parties to criminal proceedings on the part of the prosecution and the court is carried out through mutual relations conditioned by common tasks, which are based on the principle of publicity, caused by the interests of society and the state, in order to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of the individual, to some extent involved in the criminal proceedings. In this regard, the objectives of the study are: the recommendations for improving the interaction efficiency between individual participants of the prosecution and the court in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case, the enhancing of cooperation between the subjects of the investigation, the prosecutor and the court, aimed at protecting the rights of persons who have suffered from a crime, as well as the ensuring of the rights of an individual who has been subjected to unjustified criminal prosecution. Methods: the methodological framework for the scientific paper is the methods of scientific cognition, and such general scientific research methods as dialectical, logical, system, structural and functional, and the specific scientific methods, the comparative legal and formal legal methods. Results: in the paper, the authors determine that the interaction of the court, the prosecutor and the investigator contains the following components: purpose, stage and form; sets the criteria for the forms of interaction, in the form of procedural status, purpose, share of responsibility and the nature of legal relations. The paper examines such terms as “relationship” and “interaction”, due to the need to determine their relationship. The authors establish that the relationship of interaction and relationships of parties to criminal proceedings can be characterized as part and general. The highest form of relationship between parties to criminal proceedings is procedural interaction, which forms their stable relationships, gives them the property of stability and productivity. Conclusions: the authors determine that the interaction of the preliminary investigation bodies, the prosecutor and the court is based on the tasks of collecting evidence in the course of criminal proceedings, due to: the need to obtain permission to conduct certain investigative actions and the measures of procedural coercion; the prosecutor’s supervision of the procedural activities of the bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation; the powers of the court in pre-trial proceedings. The authors come to the conclusion that the main tasks of interaction are: ensuring the legality of the activities of the participants in the interaction; preparing an indictment, a charging document or a determination, for a full, comprehensive and objective judicial review; implementing the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person and citizen, the interests of society and the state.


Author(s):  
Vladimir Sherstnev

The creation of a special conciliation-compensatory mechanism for resolving criminal law conflicts in the economic sphere is an urgent political and legal problem. Without its permission, it is impossible to establish a new system of legal relations in the economic sphere between the state, the population and business, corresponding to the needs of the socio-economic development of Russia. Formally, such a mechanism is provided for in Article 761 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Under his normal work, the main task would be solved: compensation for damage from economic crimes, restoration of social relations in the economy. In addition, this would be achieved with the maximum saving of forces and means of law enforcement agencies. However, in practice, primarily in the preliminary investigation, this legal mechanism is applied little and does not fulfill its purpose. The article explains the causes of this phenomenon and suggests measures to address them. Part of these measures, legal and technical in nature, is associated with the optimization of the existing model for terminating the criminal in connection with compensation for damage. Among them, it is proposed to refuse such conditions for deciding on the termination of a criminal case (prosecution), such as the primacy, degree of public danger of the crime, the fullness of the consent of a person with a suspicion (accusation) against him and others. However, a much greater effect of the analyzed legal mechanism could be achieved if the preliminary investigation was carried out. The establishment of a judicial procedure for bringing charges, forming the basis of criminal liability and exemption from it in connection with compensation for a crime committed in the economic sphere would make the procedure fair and open, and therefore attractive to all participants in a criminal case.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.


Author(s):  
Sergey Rossinskiy

In this article, the author continues his series of publications devoted to the problems of evidence in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case. The article considers one of the most controversial procedural ways to establish circumstances that are important for a criminal case – judicial examination. Draws attention to a serious procedural feature of an expert, reminding not so much the rights of participants of criminal proceedings considered in Chapter 8 (Criminal procedure code) of the Russian Federation, as the jurisdictional powers of the bodies of preliminary investigation and trial. The author believes that the opportunity given to the expert to assess the actual quality of the research objects and their total adequacy to formulate certain conclusions compare him to a scientific judge. The author examines in detail the reasons that encouraged the scientists to abandon the idea of an expert as a scientific judge, and comes to the conclusion that they are wrong and farfetched. This allows us to think about changes in the doctrinal and legislative approaches to the role of an expert as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings, namely, the prospects for granting him the authority to establish certain factual circumstances through the use of special knowledge. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that the proposed innovations will inevitably require undamentally different approaches to the training of judicial experts, to their training and education as highly professional subjects with an appro-priate level of legal awareness, legal understanding and responsibility for the results of research and conclusions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document