Tłumacz ustny w postępowaniu karnym

Interpreter in Criminal Proceeding This article presents the role of an interpreter in criminal proceedings, Polish and international regulations governing the obligation to appoint an interpreter for criminal procedural activities, the problems of interpreters’ cooperation with justice authorities, and the results of a survey on the experiences of sworn interpreters who provide interpreting services to the Police, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts in criminal proceedings in the following aspects: ensuring safety in the course of the activities, expectations of foreigners and authorities’ representatives towards the interpreter, preparing the interpreter’s work station and ensuring appropriate working conditions, as well as agreeing upon an appropriate remuneration for interpreters. A total of fifty-five sworn interpreters who regularly provide interpreting services to justice authorities took part in the survey. Their task was to complete a questionnaire consisting of fourteen questions, half of which were closed single-choice questions and the rest were open-ended questions.

The Number of Unanimous Witnesses who Identify a Suspect from a Lineup Influences Mock Jurors

<p>During a criminal proceeding, jurors need to weigh up the presented evidence and determine a verdict. Research has shown that witness identification evidence is compelling to jurors, despite the fact that it can be unreliable. How reliable are the combined lineup decisions gathered from multiple witnesses? Generally, the more witnesses who identify the same person from a lineup, the more likely that person is guilty. But recent theoretical evidence suggests that a greater number of witnesses identifying the same person from a biased lineup can indicate that person is actually less likely to be guilty than if there were a smaller number of witnesses identifying that person (Gunn et al., 2016). As the number of agreeing witnesses increases, the more likely that agreement is caused by the lineup bias, rather than consistent witness memories of the crime. In this thesis, I examined how unanimity and lineup bias influenced jurors’ perceptions of guilt. Subjects who saw a biased lineup gave lower ratings of guilt compared to subjects that were shown a lineup that had no obvious bias. In addition, warning subjects that a lineup was biased led them to give lower guilt ratings than subjects who did not receive a warning. Subjects who were told there were two witnesses who identified the police suspect gave higher guilt ratings than subjects who were told there was one witness who identified the police suspect, but only when the lineup was clearly not biased. Subjects’ guilt ratings were not significantly greater in conditions with more than two unanimous witnesses identifying the police suspect. It seems subjects had a limit of certainty based on changes in witness numbers alone. We also found that the way in which witness numbers were presented to subjects influenced guilt ratings. When we presented witnesses coming forward in different groups and on different days, subjects shifted their guilt ratings upwards. When the number of witnesses decreased during the experiment, subjects did not decrease their guilt ratings to the same extent as those subjects in conditions in which the number of witnesses increased by the same magnitude. This finding is consistent with the literature on confirmation bias and the story model of juror decision-making—subjects likely formed an initial belief that the identified suspect was guilty and subsequent evidence was evaluated against that belief (Nickerson, 1988; Pennington & Hastie, 1993). The finding that presenting witnesses coming forward in separate groups increased subjects’ guilt ratings adds to the literature showing that jurors are influenced by irrelevant information presented to them during a proceeding. This research also demonstrates that future research should examine strength of evidence manipulations over multiple levels—rather than as dichotomous “strong” and “weak” extremes.</p>

The Number of Unanimous Witnesses who Identify a Suspect from a Lineup Influences Mock Jurors

<p>During a criminal proceeding, jurors need to weigh up the presented evidence and determine a verdict. Research has shown that witness identification evidence is compelling to jurors, despite the fact that it can be unreliable. How reliable are the combined lineup decisions gathered from multiple witnesses? Generally, the more witnesses who identify the same person from a lineup, the more likely that person is guilty. But recent theoretical evidence suggests that a greater number of witnesses identifying the same person from a biased lineup can indicate that person is actually less likely to be guilty than if there were a smaller number of witnesses identifying that person (Gunn et al., 2016). As the number of agreeing witnesses increases, the more likely that agreement is caused by the lineup bias, rather than consistent witness memories of the crime. In this thesis, I examined how unanimity and lineup bias influenced jurors’ perceptions of guilt. Subjects who saw a biased lineup gave lower ratings of guilt compared to subjects that were shown a lineup that had no obvious bias. In addition, warning subjects that a lineup was biased led them to give lower guilt ratings than subjects who did not receive a warning. Subjects who were told there were two witnesses who identified the police suspect gave higher guilt ratings than subjects who were told there was one witness who identified the police suspect, but only when the lineup was clearly not biased. Subjects’ guilt ratings were not significantly greater in conditions with more than two unanimous witnesses identifying the police suspect. It seems subjects had a limit of certainty based on changes in witness numbers alone. We also found that the way in which witness numbers were presented to subjects influenced guilt ratings. When we presented witnesses coming forward in different groups and on different days, subjects shifted their guilt ratings upwards. When the number of witnesses decreased during the experiment, subjects did not decrease their guilt ratings to the same extent as those subjects in conditions in which the number of witnesses increased by the same magnitude. This finding is consistent with the literature on confirmation bias and the story model of juror decision-making—subjects likely formed an initial belief that the identified suspect was guilty and subsequent evidence was evaluated against that belief (Nickerson, 1988; Pennington & Hastie, 1993). The finding that presenting witnesses coming forward in separate groups increased subjects’ guilt ratings adds to the literature showing that jurors are influenced by irrelevant information presented to them during a proceeding. This research also demonstrates that future research should examine strength of evidence manipulations over multiple levels—rather than as dichotomous “strong” and “weak” extremes.</p>

Body of preliminary investigation in the modern russian criminal proceeding

In the modern Russian criminal proceeding the role of the head of the investigative body has increased so much that it is no longer necessary to talk about any procedural independence of the investigator. This situation is highly criticized in the legal literature and the researchers note the necessity to return the investigator to the former procedural status. According to the author of the article, the current state of the issue should not be considered problematic since in the conditions of the changed criminal procedure regulations the investigator is no longer a single body of the preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation is carried out jointly by the investigator and the head of the investigative body, who is assigned a leading and controlling role. In fact, there are grounds to speak about the collegiality of the modern preliminary investigation. At the same time, the preliminary investigation body is currently an investigative body and therefore procedural independence should be provided not to the investigator, but to the investigative body.

Practical aspects of determining the evidences obtained as a result of investigative (search) actions as inadmissible in the criminal proceeding.

The article is devoted to the study of theoretical and practical aspects of determining the evidences obtained as a result of investigative (search) actions as inadmissible in the criminal proceeding. The criminal procedural law of Ukraine formulates general requirements which must be followed during the evidence-collection process: 1) the legal sources of evidences; 2) the proper registration of the course and results of procedural actions during criminal proceedings; 3) the evidence-collection process fulfilled by appropriate authorities; 4) legal method for obtaining evidences. Failure to comply with these requirements results in the inadmissibility of evidences. However, further study of theoretical and practical aspects of determining evidences as inadmissible has shown that some requirements are not so obvious so it is difficult to identify them immediately. Analyzing the judicial practice of Ukraine, researching the scientific works of domestic scientists, as well as studying the works of foreign experts in terms of the general concept of admissibility of evidences, we can see the need for legal determinancy, which requires criminal procedure law. It causes subjectivism and different interpretations of admissibility or inadmissibility of evidences, which create an incredible number of problems that complicate the conduct of criminal proceeding at both pre-trial investigation and court hearing. This is confirmed by a large number of cases related to the recognition of admissibility or inadmissibility of evidences. Uncertainty of the categorical-conceptual apparatus not only leads to incorrect application of criminal procedural law during the course of investigative (search) actions by pre-trial investigation bodies in order to gather and obtain admissible evidences, but also helps to facilitate ways to circumvent certain provisions of law.

PARTICIPATION OF AN INTERPRETER IN CRIMINAL PROCESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

The article examines the criminal procedural status of an interpreter as a guarantor of ensuring therights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings. It is known that in a multinational country, it is especially important to respect the right of a participant in a criminal proceeding to choose a language, to have a reliable and accurate translation of case materials. The author, through the analysis of legislative norms, tries to give a legal assessment to the translator, as a specialist, calledupon to clarify the provision of justice in pre-trial and court proceedings. According to the author, it is the competence of the translator in the criminal process, his knowledge of his rights and obligations, sufficient knowledge of special legal vocabulary that is the most important factor in achieving the goals set for criminal justice. The article contains proposals for improving the legalstatus of the translator

Reflections on the Legal Classification of Participants in Criminal Proceedings

In the paper, the authors attempt to analyze the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings. The work contains an analysis of the ratio between the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of criminal procedural relations. Having studied the approaches available in the theory of criminal procedure that existed during the period of the Soviet criminal procedure legislation and in the modern period, the authors conclude that it is unacceptable to identify the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of the criminal proceedings. A participant in a criminal proceeding is a person who has certain characteristics, including the existence of rights, duties and responsibilities, as set out in the relevant criminal procedure norm or group of norms.Having applied the method of comparative legal analysis of domestic and foreign criminal procedure legislation, procedural theoretical constructions of the Soviet and modern period, the authors conclude that the legislator made an error in the presented classification and system of participants in the criminal procedure. In addition to the main criminal procedure functions, the authors focus on the existence of other functions that are no less important for the emergence and development of criminal procedure relations. It is stated that there is a need to change the approach to the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings, taking as a basis the existing experience of individual foreign countries. The authors propose to change the structure of section II of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which makes it possible to avoid the currently existing procedural conflict related to the attribution of the investigator and the inquirer to the prosecution. It may also help to eliminate any doubts about the attribution of persons assisting in the administration of justice to the participants in the proceedings.

Pełnomocnik małoletniego pokrzywdzonego w postępowaniu karnym - postulaty de lege ferenda.

The article is a kind of a response to the press conferences organised by the Ministry of Justice on the 21st February 2021 announcing, that Ministry of Justice had prepared complementary project of 21 changes in the legislation, make the law more child-friendly. The study contains numerous de lege ferenda demands concerning changes in the rules regulating the issue of representing a child in a criminal proceeding. The author proposes for example, simplification and harmonisation of issues of representation of minor victims, and thereby resignation from the participation of the guardian ad litem in the criminal proceeding, while introducing an instutution of mandatory attorney.

Criminal procedural functions: problematic issues in the definition of concepts

The article is devoted to the study of such a problematic issue of the domestic science of the criminal process as, the definition of the concept of criminal procedural functions. The author of the article analyzes the concepts of procedural functions available in the theory of the concept, classifying them within the framework of four approaches. On the basis of the analysis of each approach, the author proposes his own notion of criminal procedural functions and their characteristics. Key words:function, criminal procedural function, criminal proceeding, competitiveness, criminal procedure activity