Preview

Actual Problems of Russian Law

Advanced search

Procedural Form of Defense Counsel Participation in Establishment of Evidence in Pre-Trial Proceedings Requires Optimization

https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2023.150.5.123-131

Abstract

Criminal procedural proof, which is the core of pre-trial proceedings, on the one hand, predetermines the justice of the final court decision in a criminal case, on the other hand, is able to protect a person from illegal and unreasonable criminal prosecution in a timely manner. The achievement of this is in direct correlation with the procedural capabilities of the defender to effectively participate in such establishment of evidence. However, the study of the opinions of academia, practitioners and generalization of the results of investigative practice, judicial statistics has led to the belief that in the course of establishment of evidence in a criminal case there exists an unreasonable discretion of the investigator and the interrogating officer over the guarantees of the individual’s right to protection enshrined in criminal procedure law. The defense counsel, despite the strengthening of these guarantees by the Federal Law of April 17, 2017 No. 73‑FZ, is not yet able to overcome the accusatory bias of the investigator, interrogator and properly defend the suspect, the accused. The author makes a proposal to solve this problem, taking into account the features of the modern form (type) of pre-trial proceedings.

About the Author

O. A. Malysheva
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation

Olga A. Malysheva, Dr. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Procedure Law 

ul. Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya, d. 9, Moscow, 125993



References

1. Voskobitova L. A. Obvinenie ili obvinitelnyy uklon // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2014. — № 3. — S. 458–461.

2. Davletov A. A. Obyazan li sledovatel priobshchat k ugolovnomu delu i zakreplyat v kachestve dokazatelstv materialy, predstavlennye advokatom-zashchitnikom? // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2019. — № 4. — S. 33–38.

3. Davletov A. A., Azarenok N. V. Sledstvennyy sudya v sovremennoy modeli ugolovnogo protsessa // Rossiyskiy sudya. — 2020. — № 6. — S. 19–26.

4. Ershova I. M. Uchastie advokata-zashchitnika v ugolovno-protsessualnom dokazyvanii // URL: https://xn--80afeb9beico.78.xn--b1aew.xn--p1ai/document/215 29929 (data obrashcheniya: 20.11.2022).

5. Zhamkova O. E., Salova A. S. Sovershenstvovanie deyatelnosti zashchitnika v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo: sovremennoe sostoyanie i strategiya razvitiya: sbornik nauch. trudov X Ezhegodnoy vserossiyskoy nauch.-prakt. konferentsii (26 noyabrya 2020 g.)/ sost. O. V. Khimicheva. — M.: Moskovskiy universitet MVD Rossii imeni V.Ya. Kikotya, 2021. — S. 54–56.

6. Kolokolov N. A. Parallelnoe advokatskoe rassledovanie // URL: https://wiselawyer.ru/poleznoe/6328-parallelnoe-advokatskoe-rassledovanie (data obrashcheniya: 23.10.2022).

7. Kasatkina S. A. K voprosu o privlechenii spetsialista zashchitnikom na dosudebnoy stadii (v svete izmeneniy, vnesennykh Federalnym zakonom ot 17.04.2017 № 73‑FZ) // Yuridicheskiy vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. — 2017. — T. 3. — № 4. — S. 113–120.

8. Kudryavtseva A. V. Teoriya dokazyvaniya v yuridicheskom protsesse. — Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo YuUrGU, 2006. — 220 s.

9. Malysheva O. A. Dosudebnoe proizvodstvo po ugolovnym delam kak forma realizatsii ugolovnoy politiki. — M.: Yurist, 2007. — 184 s.

10. Murashkin I. Yu. Storona obvineniya kak subekt dokazyvaniya nevinovnosti // Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii. — 2018. — № 1 (68). — S. 25–29.

11. Nazarov A. D. Obvinitelnyy uklon v deyatelnosti subektov, vedushchikh ugolovnyy protsess, kak faktor, sposobstvuyushchiy poyavleniyu oshibok v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2015. — № 9. — S. 149–154.

12. Smagorinskaya E. B. Uchastie advokata v dokazyvanii v dosudebnom ugolovnom proizvodstve: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Volgograd: Volgogradskaya akademiya MVD Rossii, 2004. — 18 s.

13. Sushchenko S. A. Sudebnaya otsenka nedopustimosti dokazatelstv v ugolovnom protsesse: nekotorye sravnitelno-pravovye aspekty // Mirovoy sudya. — 2017. — № 2. — S. 21–24.

14. Ugolovno-protsessualnoe pravo Rossiyskoy Federatsii / pod red. P. A. Lupinskoy. — M., 2009. — 1008 s.

15. Serene B. Le prove atipiche e le prove illecite // URL: http://www.diritto.it/docs/35290-le-prove-atipichee-le-prove-illecite (data obrashcheniya: 10.10.2021).


Review

For citations:


Malysheva O.A. Procedural Form of Defense Counsel Participation in Establishment of Evidence in Pre-Trial Proceedings Requires Optimization. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2023;18(5):123-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2023.150.5.123-131

Views: 286


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


ISSN 1994-1471 (Print)
ISSN 2782-1862 (Online)