Lecture
Plan
The main task of the prosecutor’s accusatory speech is to prove the fact of the crime and the guilt of the defendant, to prove the correctness of the accusation against him. The prosecutor helps the court to establish the truth of the case, make the right decision, contributes to the formation of the inner convictions of judges. A speech by the prosecutor is one of the most crucial stages of his accusatory activity, aimed at exposing the crime and bringing the perpetrator to justice.
The power of the prosecutor's speech is the evidence of the main points, the validity of the conclusions, the iron logic of the facts. Its content, structure, sequence of presentation of the material, the ratio of the individual parts are determined by the peculiarities of the case under consideration, the nature of the evidence presented, and also depends largely on the personality of the speaker, his qualifications, professional skills, mastery of public speaking, etc.
Building an accusatory speech, like any public speaking, is an individual, creative process that requires a lot of effort from the speaker, hard work, a deep understanding of the material available in the case.
However, it should be borne in mind that the centuries-old practice of judicial speeches has developed common structural parts of the accusatory speech, the knowledge and use of which allows the speaker to more effectively achieve the goals.
The approximate scheme of accusatory speech given below is recommended in many works on judicial eloquence and legal psychology:
1. Introduction
2. Statement of the actual circumstances of the crime (plot of the case).
3. Analysis and assessment of evidence collected in the case.
4. Characteristics of the identity of the defendant and the victim.
5. Justification of the qualification of the crime.
6. Considerations about the punishment.
7. Consideration of issues related to compensation for material damage caused by the crime.
8. Analysis of the causes and conditions that contributed to the crime, and proposals for their elimination.
9. Conclusion.
Naturally, the sequence of the constituent parts of the accusatory speech, the significance and volume of each of them will vary depending on the nature of the case, the individual characteristics of the speaker, etc.
Introductory part.
The introduction is the most important part of the oratorical speech. The task of the introductory part is to attract the attention of listeners, to establish contact with the audience, to create favorable conditions for the perception of speech, to prepare those present in the hall to adopt the main provisions and conclusions of the speaker.
We note, however, that there are different opinions about whether admission speeches are necessary at all, whether the prosecutor needs to present his view of the crime, its features, the exceptional importance of this case, etc. to the judges.
A. Levenstim formulates the main requirements for entry:
- Entry should be brief, concise and closely related to speech. You can not make it out of general expressions and thoughts that are not relevant to the case.
- The introduction should be calm, because too much enthusiasm, heat and sharp pictures at the beginning of the speech force the speaker to quickly lower the tone in the main part of his speech, whereas in it the whole essence of the matter lies.
- The content of the introduction can be very diverse depending on the strength of the evidence and the general nature of the case.
Indeed, an analysis of the texts of accusatory speeches shows that the speakers in the introductions use a variety of techniques that allow them to bring those present in the courtroom to the circumstances of a criminal offense.
Quite often, prosecutors begin their speech with an assessment of the moral and ethical significance of the case being examined, with an indication of the public danger of the act committed. For example:
“Dear judges! For your consideration submitted case, which represents a great public danger. For several days in this courtroom, we thoroughly investigated all the circumstances of the crime committed by Ivy, Nikulnikov and Semenov.
Cases of this category have begun to appear in the last 2 years, in connection with which I would like to draw your attention to the ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 21, 1993 “On judicial practice in cases of banditry”. In this the resolution is given the concept of gang. In particular, a gang is recognized as a stable, organized, armed group, previously united to carry out one or several attacks on citizens, or on enterprises, institutions, organizations.
In the organization of an armed gang under art. 77 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and charged Nikulnikov, Semenov and Ivy. As indicated in the indictment, in order to attack citizens, enterprises, institutions and organizations in March-April 1994 organized a criminal group in Zlatoust, armed with 4 TT pistols and ammunition for them ”(From the speech of the public prosecutor of the prosecutor) .
Some speakers begin the accusatory speech with a picture of the crime. “Such an introduction,” notes A. Levenstim, “is very practical, because it facilitates the transition to the main part and makes it possible to immediately set forth the controversial point. At the beginning of the speech, when the susceptibility is fresh and the attention is still strengthened by a good introduction, it is appropriate to point out the main point about which the struggle takes place. A. F. Koni repeatedly resorted to this technique in his speeches. For example:
“Gentlemen of the judge, gentlemen of the jury! About a month ago, in Spasskaya Street, in Dmitrevsky’s house, a great misfortune happened. The family, the only support of which was Aleksey Ivanovich Ryzhov, consisting of him and four children, was suddenly and unexpectedly orphaned: the head of this family was deprived of life. He lost his life, not surrounded by care and the participation of his relatives, not blessing his children, but accompanied by their desperate cries and falling from the hand of a loved one and of a man owed to him. This close and obliged person is currently in front of you, and it is up to you to decide his fate ”(In the case of the murder of State Councilor Ryzhov).
A speaker may begin by speaking about his personal position in the case . For example, N. V. Muravyov, supporting in the Moscow Court of Justice an accusation against a justice of the peace, tried for insulting the action of a comrade prosecutor who is in the line of office, began his speech with the following phrase:
“Gentlemen of the jury! Speaking to you in the present case, I fully understand the need to be particularly biased in assessing evidence and evidence, since the person who was directly injured from a crime, my colleague for arms, is my subordinate. ”
The presentation of the speech program is also effective at the beginning of the speech . The prosecutor begins a speech by listing the questions he intends to discuss; indicates which provisions will justify, what circumstances to analyze, etc. This helps the audience to follow the speaker’s reasoning purposefully , facilitates speech perception. Here, for example, the beginning of the speech of Prosecutor I. P. in the case of Petrov, accused of the murder of citizen K .:
“Dear judges! The task of the prosecution is to prove that on February 15 defendant Petrov, out of jealousy, killed citizen Krasilnikova, who was associated with him by intimate relations. We will also prove that the murder was committed deliberately, according to a premeditated plan; that the crime instruments had been brought in advance by the murderer to the crime scene and that, having committed the murder, Petrov then took a number of measures to conceal the traces of the crime, acting here too prudently and thoughtfully. ”
A. Levenstim indicates another way to start the speech:
“ You can point to the special nature of the evidence with which you have to operate in the case: the lack of direct evidence, which is distinguished by relief, and, instead, the presence of indirect evidence, which by the nature of the case can only be collected. Such a start will be very convenient in cases of arson, the destruction of documents, the giving of false testimony, in which the conclusion of guilt has to be chosen through a number of conclusions, and not on the basis of strong, direct evidence. ”
These are the basic techniques that are usually used by speakers in the introductory part of the accusatory speech, but, as already noted, there is a special introduction in all speeches.
In preparing for the judicial debate, the prosecutor should pay special attention to the main part of the speech, which sets out the facts of the case, analyzes the evidence, draws conclusions.
Statement of the actual circumstances of the crime (plot of the case). Sometimes this part replaces the introduction, but more often the entry smoothly turns into a statement of the circumstances of the case.
The speech of the prosecutor sums up the outcome of the judicial investigation, but it should not be a repetition of the indictment. Therefore, when presenting the circumstances of the case, the prosecutor is recommended to be brief and precise, to present the material clearly and convincingly.
In judicial practice, there are different ways of presenting the circumstances of the case: chronological, systematic and mixed.
Using the chronological method, the prosecutor states the circumstances of the case in the sequence in which they were established during the preliminary investigation and during the trial, that is, it shows the way to clarify the circumstances of the case.
A systematic way involves the presentation of the circumstances of the case in the sequence in which they took place in reality, more precisely, as they appear to the prosecution. This method of presentation gives a holistic view of the essence of the case, paints a complete picture of the crime committed. The disadvantages of this method include the fact that, in fact, the circumstances of the case are separated from the evidence, isolated from them.
Therefore, speakers often resort to the so-called mixed method , which combines elements of both chronological and systematic way of presenting the circumstances of the case.
Analysis and evaluation of evidence collected in the case. This is the most difficult and responsible part of the accusatory speech.
The prosecutor is obliged to take all the measures provided by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case, to identify both those who incriminate and justify the accused, as well as circumstances mitigating and aggravating his responsibility.
The task of the prosecutor is to systematize all the evidence collected in the case (testimony of witnesses, testimony of the defendant, testimony of the victim, expert opinions, physical evidence, protocols of judicial actions, documents certifying certain facts, etc.) and assess them from a position of accusation.
Evaluation of evidence includes the establishment of such properties as the admissibility, relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the entire set to confirm the charges. All evidence must be obtained from sources prescribed by law, in the manner prescribed by law and properly procedurally processed.
In his speech, the public prosecutor must clearly and clearly show what evidence confirms the defendant's guilt, what charge can be considered justified, and what circumstances have not been confirmed during the trial and should be rejected.
It should be borne in mind that neither the evidence of the case nor the confession of guilt to the defendants removes from the prosecutor the obligation to prove the charges.
A. F. Koni draws the attention of readers to the fact that he did and is guilty - different concepts, therefore, evaluating the proofs finally worked out during the judicial investigation, one can make indications on the everyday side of the matter, on the practical conditions of the hostel, on the dominant views, on the influence of the environment , examples, press, etc. Sometimes it may be necessary to indicate the physical and mental properties of the sex and age of the accused person on the features of his official or social position, which in themselves serve as evidence may no checking on the court proceedings are not subject.
Characteristics of the defendant and the victim.
As VL Vasilyev, a specialist in legal psychology, stresses, the characteristics of the defendant are one of the most ethically complex elements of the prosecutor’s accusatory speech. It is necessary primarily because the accuser’s conclusions regarding possible punishment of the defendant are largely determined by the person of the perpetrator. Without covering the data on the identity of the defendant, it is impossible to reveal the causes of the crime, the circumstances that contributed to it. However, speaking of the defendant, the prosecutor should not forget that he is dealing with a person whose fault has not been established, for which the presumption of innocence applies.
The characteristics of the defendant must be objective, contain the necessary information to resolve the case, and correspond to the original.
Describing the defendant, the prosecutor must be restrained in the choice of words and expressions. In the characteristic it is important to show whether a crime is a natural result of the manifestation of his personal qualities or is completely influenced by those or other circumstances that forced him to unlawful actions.
In order to more clearly show the identity of the defendant, to identify those aspects of his character that contributed to the commission of a criminal act, prosecutors often draw a portrait of the victim, the victim or another person involved in the crime. Thus, in a speech on the case of the drowning of a peasant Emelyanova by her husband, A. F. Koni describes three people - the defendant, his wife, and his mistress:
“Let's look at the personal character of the defendant, as he was described to us. This character is firm, resolute, courageous. Yegor does not live in harmony with his comrades, there is no day to quarrel, a “naughty” person, restless, he does not like to let anyone down. A student who, going to the bathhouse, began to break the purity, he beat the pain - and, moreover, beat not the brother of his peasant, but the student, the “master” —that is, a person who does not stop in his rushes. In the home, this man is not particularly gentle, not allowing the mother to cry when he is held under arrest, treating his mistress “like a hangman”. A series of testimonies draws how he appeals in general to those who are subordinate to him by right or custom: “Are you going?” He shouts at his wife, calling her with him; “Gay, come out,” knocks on the window, “come out,” he shouts imperiously to Agrafene.
This is a man accustomed to rule and command those who obey him, alienated comrades, selfish, non-drinker, accurate and accurate.
So, this character is concentrated, strong and firm, but developed in a bad environment, which it began to give any restraining moral.
Let's look at his wife now. About her also characteristic indications: this woman is short, fat, blond, phlegmatic, silent and tolerant: “All tyranny from my wife, capricious woman, endured, never said a word,” says the witness Odintsov about her. “Words are hard to get from her,” he added. So, this is what kind of person: quiet, submissive, sluggish and boring, the main thing - boring.
Then comes Agrafena Surin. You have seen and heard her: you can not treat her with sympathy, but you do not deny her one thing: she is brisk and even here, after a word, doesn’t crawl into her pocket, cannot smile, arguing with the defendant, she is obviously very much alive , cheerful nature, energetic, her not give up for nothing, she has black eyes, rosy cheeks, black hair. This is a completely different type, a different temperament.
These three faces are brought together by fate. ”
An analysis of modern accusatory speeches shows that it is the personal characteristics that succeed the least in prosecutors. Researchers point out in this regard such disadvantages as schematism, treasury, extreme one-sidedness, didactism, mentoring, arrogant conceit, “thickening of colors”, etc.
Justification of the qualification of the crime, considerations about the punishment and the resolution of issues related to the compensation of the damage caused.
To substantiate the qualification of the prosecution is to prove the correctness of the legal assessment of the actions imputed to the defendants, to show that they contain the necessary elements of a crime as provided by law. In an accusatory speech, the prosecutor should state his views on the type of punishment, state its size or term, and the conditions of serving. In the presence of damage caused by the crime, the procurator also proposes his solution to the question of his compensation.
Analysis of the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of a crime. In the accusatory speech, the prosecutor is obliged to dwell on the causes of the crime, to show why the criminal act became possible. According to experts, the speech of the prosecutor should include:
• the circumstances that caused the formation of an antisocial attitude in a person (conditions of moral personality formation);
• the circumstances that prompted the person to commit the crime (the specific life situation that provoked criminal acts);
• circumstances that contributed to the achievement of the criminal result and the concealment of traces of the crime;
• measures to be taken to eliminate the causes and conditions that caused the commission of a crime.
Analysis of the causes and conditions of the crime, as the researchers note, unfortunately, is not always the subject of attention of the prosecutor. This sometimes leads to one-sided coverage of crime events and does not allow revealing its social roots.
Заключение. Интересная характеристика заключительной части обвинительной речи содержится в работе А. Левенстима:
«Заключение должно быть венцом всего здания; нужно, чтобы в нем вылилась сущность всей речи, которая длилась несколько часов. Все затруднение кроется в том, что последний период должен быть ясен и в то же время краток и силён. <...> Заключительные фразы должны усилить впечатление, произведенное речью, а не ослабить значение тех выводов, которые получены из анализа улик».
В заключительной части обвинительной речи ораторы используют самые разнообразные приемы:
• кратко формулируют итоги судебного процесса;
• указывают на результаты преступной деятельности обвиняемого;
• рисуют картину преступления, если она не была дана во вступлении;
• указывают на те уроки, которые должны быть извлечены из данного дела;
• подчеркивают значение приговора, общественную опасность преступления и др.
Важно, чтобы заключение было тесно связано со всеми другими частями обвинительной речи.
Приведем образец заключения из речи А. Ф. Кони:
«От вас, господа присяжные, зависит судьба подсудимых. Вы можете оправдать их или обвинить, но, стараясь предугадать ваш приговор, я полагаю, что оправдательного им услышать не придется. Личности, подобные Колосову, вредны нетолько как люди, совершающие известное, караемое законом преступление, они еще более вредны как вносящие всюду, куда они проникают, во всё, к чему они прикасаются, нравственную заразу. Такие люди, в видах ограждения общества,должны быть устранены из него. Вот почему я думаю, что, услышавши ваш обвинительный приговор и о себе, и о Колосове, Ярошевич, который верил, что его руководитель счастливо прошел «огонь, воду и медные трубы», поймет, что, кроме огня, воды и медных труб, есть еще нечто, через что гораздо труднее пройти — это суд». (Из речи по делу об акушере Колосове и дворянине Ярошевиче)
2. Защитительная речь
Речь защитника по уголовным или гражданским делам является важнейшей составной частью судебных прений. В ней с точки зрения защиты анализируются собранные по делу доказательства, высказываются соображения по сути обвинения, юридической квалификации преступного деяния, мере наказания и другим вопросам, разрешаемым судом при постановлении приговора. Она должна оказатьвлияние на судьей, способствовать формированию их внутреннего убеждения.
Защитник обязан использовать все указанные в законе средства и способы защиты в целях выявления обстоятельств, оправдывающих подозреваемого или обвиняемого, смягчающих их ответственность, оказывать им необходимую юридическую помощь.
As many researchers have noted, the complexity of the defensive speech lies in the fact that it is pronounced after the accusatory speech of the prosecutor. Therefore, the defender often encounters various kinds of "barriers" from the side of the audience, which has already accepted the position of accusation. And, as you know, to persuade someone of something much more difficult than just to convince.
When uttering a defensive speech, there are many ethical problems that are much more complex than in an accusatory speech. A. F. Koni paid serious attention to this. In his work “The Moral Principles in the Criminal Procedure,” he writes that there are diametrically opposed views on the defender.
Some people believe that he is only a legal advocate, and not a servant of his client, not an accomplice to him in an effort to get away from the well-deserved punishment of justice. The advocate serves the public interest. "He is a friend, an adviser to a man who, in his sincere conviction, is not at all guilty or not at all guilty of that, as well as what he is accused of."
Others argue that a lawyer is a “producer of labor that has a known value, paid as an equivalent, depending on the severity of the work and the ability of the worker”. For the defender there are no clean and dirty, right and wrong cases. It serves the immediate interests of the client and does not look at the far horizon of the public good.
А. Ф. Кони высказывает свою озабоченность по поводу того, что защита преступника порой обращается в оправдание преступления, а «широко оплаченная ораторская помощь отдается в пользование притеснителю слабых, развратителюневинных или расхитителю чужих трудовых сбережений».
Следует особо отметить, что непрофессионально подготовленная и неумело произнесенная защитительная речь может превратиться в обвинительную, принести непоправимый вред подзащитному, не только не помочь ему, а значительно усугубить его положение.
Интересные соображения на эту тему содержатся в заключительной главе книги П. С. Сергеича «Искусство речи на суде». Автор ссылается на мнения ряда присяжных заседателей, которые уверены, что обвинению помогли защитники. В качестве доказательства в работе приводится случай из судебной практики.
Хромая нищенка обвиняется в том, что бросила своего внебрачного ребенка в отхожее место. В свое оправдание она говорила, что не могла прокормить его, не могла внести плату за него в воспитательный дом, и утверждала, что ребенок сам скатился в яму, а она в испуге убежала.
Объяснение это сначала произвело благоприятное впечатление. Однако допрос свидетелей показал, что подсудимая лгала, что ребенок был брошен в яму намеренно. Выяснились еще некоторые особенности не в пользу обвиняемой: она собирала деньги попрошайничеством и кормила на эти деньги двух любовников.
Обвинитель говорил немного. Дело казалось уже решенным. Защищали ее два молодых адвоката.
Первый произнес настоящую защитительную речь, закончив ее словами: «Она нищая, жалкая нищая и протягивает к вам теперь за милостью свою руку, не положите в нее камень». Он говорил искренне, со сдержанным волнением, с разумной осторожностью в толковании фактов, он ничего не навязывал присяжным и ни о чем не просил. Его умная и трогательная речь значительно смягчила, почти рассеяла чувства, вызванные судебным следствием.
Затем слово взял второй защитник.
«Он говорил несравненно дольше своего товарища, говорил страстно, почти истерично, громко, почти до крика. Речь состояла из общих мест, и следить за нею было настолько трудно, что мы, судьи, многое не поняли, — пишет П. Сергеич. — Основная мысль была, однако, выражена ясно: виноваты в преступлении были все, кроме преступницы; судьи и присяжные едва ли не были виновнее всех других; так, по крайней мере, казалось, потому что им приходилось выслушивать неистовые изобличения оратора. Другая отчетливая мысль его заключалась в том, что «на дне», где жила подсудимая, нет понятий о дозволенном и безнравственном и что эта среда вытравила у нее сознание долга и материнскую любовь к детищу. «Этот ребенок был для нее куском сырого больного мяса», — сказал, между прочим, защитник.
Остановитесь над этими последними словами, читатель; примите во внимание, что в них была правда и что они были сказаны защитником» .
Как отмечает автор, речь первого оратора не обязывала прокурора возражать. Но после второй речи прокурор не мог молчать и, возражая, не мог не заявить, что оправдательный приговор был бы признанием и освящением убийства детей матерями.
“After the first defensive speech with all the horror, the jury’s case could have recognized the defendant as innocent: the child was saved and died later not at the hands of the mother; after a second defensive speech, justification became morally impossible. When the jury went to confer, one of the judges asked the defense counsel of the defendant to tell her traitor that he was destined to be sent to prison and penal servitude for many people. ”
The experienced judicial figure P. S. Porokhovshchikov teaches:
“ Remember that the accuser can be brave if he wants: he plays in most cases with his own money; the defender must be careful: the defendant will pay for it ”.
The most important task of the defender, in the opinion of L. Ye. Vladimirov, is to correctly understand what exactly the judges ’attention focuses on, and to direct the whole force of his proof and eloquence to this subject.
The content and construction of a defensive speech is largely determined by the results of the judicial investigation, the nature of the charge, the specifics of the evidence, and the position chosen by the defense.) The defender is obliged to clearly define his procedural position on the case. He does not have the right to make alternative proposals before the court: to justify the defendant or, if the court finds him guilty, change the qualification of the charge, assign him a minimum sentence, etc. The defender must make only one conclusion, the most correct from his point of view and most favorable for his client.
Judicial practice has developed the main types of defensive positions. Based on the specific circumstances of the case, the counsel may:
- to challenge the prosecution as a whole, proving the defendant’s innocence for the lack of corpus delicti in his actions, for the absence of the crime event itself or for the defendant not being involved in it;
- to challenge the charges against its individual parts;
- to challenge the correctness of the qualification of the crime given by the prosecutor, arguing the necessity of changing the charge, which would lead to the imposition of a lighter punishment;
- justify a lower degree of guilt and responsibility of the defendant, citing mitigating circumstances of his fault;
- to prove the defendant's insanity, precluding the occurrence of criminal liability.
When choosing a line of defense, citing evidence that speaks in favor of the defendant, the defender is strictly bound by one condition: if the defendant denies his guilt, the defender does not have the right to consider this denial unreasonable and offer the court only to change the charge or impose a lesser punishment. Otherwise, the defender would actually have accused the defendant. The defender shall not have the right to refuse the defense taken upon himself for reasons that may worsen the position of the defendant, and under all conditions must give a defensive speech.
The defense speech of a lawyer, as a rule, includes the following components: 1) introduction; 2) analysis of the actual circumstances of the case; 3) analysis of the legal side of the charge; 4) personality characteristics of the defendant; 5) conclusion.
Introduction. “The pilot who is wrecked at the very exit from the harbor is bad,” these words are cited in his work by L. Ye. Vladimirov, who believed that there is nothing worse than a failed entry. The task of the introductory part of the speech is to prepare the audience for the case, to excite their interest, to make the audience more supportive and attentive to the position of the speaker. The defender must make a favorable impression on those present from the very beginning. The overconfidence of the speaker in the introduction, according to Quintillian, may not please the judge, since he nevertheless realizes his power and therefore internally always wishes that this power should be honored.
In the introduction of defensive speech are used, as in the accusatory speech, various techniques: an assessment of the social and moral and ethical significance of the case in question, a description of the picture of the crime, a statement of the program of the speech, etc.
A rather common method of initiating defensive speech is an appeal to the speech of previous speakers, that is, the prosecutor and defender of the opposing party, the analysis of these speeches, the analysis of their individual provisions, indications of certain errors, etc.
Let us give an example from the speech of the attorney attorney V. I. Yazykov in defense of Obolensky:
“Gentlemen of the jury! I heard the speech of the second representative of the accusatory power, directed mainly to the accusation of Prince Obolensky. Against him, I will first present my thoughts and say that the tone and direction of the speech itself cannot be explained by the requirements of the merits of the case, but were directed solely to present the defendant in the most unattractive way possible. The entire first part of the prosecutor’s speech was full of ornaments that covered up the poverty of the charges. The representative of the accusatory power only slightly touched the judicial investigation, forgot about the examination, referred to the laws, but made attempts, in my opinion, not quite true. He devoted two hours to the charge, which concerned the moral personality of the defendant and was directed solely to mockery of him. But, in my opinion, disgracing a person does not mean to blame. I will allow myself to make out the flowers or, rather, the thorns of this eloquence and show you what lies behind them. ”
Often, advocates, after several introductory phrases, immediately begin to consider the merits of the case.
This is how F.I. Plevako began his speech in defense of Solodovnikov and Medyntseva:
“Gentlemen of the judge and gentlemen of the jury! ... Ten-day attention to the case proved by your inquiries obliges me to spare your time, and you will allow me to directly enter into the middle of this matter, to directly address the substantive issue of the process. ”
Analysis of the actual circumstances of the case and the legal side of the accusation. This part forms the basis of defensive speech, prepares the audience for the adoption of a defense position. The evidence given by a lawyer should be closely related to the consideration of issues that should be clarified by the court when sentencing. These questions are determined by the legislator. These include: 1) whether the act of which the defendant is accused was committed; 2) whether this act contains corpus delicti and what kind of criminal law provides for it; 3) whether the defendant committed this act: 4) whether the defendant is guilty of committing this crime; 5) whether the defendant is punished; 6) what kind of punishment should be assigned to the defendant; 7) whether the civil action is subject to satisfaction, etc.
All evidence of protection must be weighty, make a deep and serious impression. From the defender are not waiting for abstract provisions and abstract reasoning, and a detailed and concrete analysis of the materials of the case.
As an example, consider the relevant part of the defense speech of attorney I. M. Kisenishsky in the case of V.G. Markov. The essence of the matter is as follows. On August 31, 1986, at 23 hours and 12 minutes, when leaving the Novorossiysk Bay to the Black Sea, the ship Pyotr Vasev suffered a shipwreck as a result of a collision with a dry cargo ship and the passenger ship “Admiral Nakhimov” sank from Sochi. On board the ship "Admiral Nakhimov" there were 1,243 people, of whom 423 passengers and crew members died. In connection with the disaster that occurred, a Government Commission was created, a criminal case was initiated, the captain of the steamer “Admiral Nakhimov” V.G. Markov and the captain of the bulk carrier “Peter Vasev” V.I. Tkachenko were brought to criminal responsibility.
In his speech, the lawyer defined and clearly formulated the tasks that the defense sets itself. This is, firstly: the study of all the material circumstances of the case in the light of the views expressed on the need to clarify the entire complex of causes and circumstances leading to the accident; secondly: finding out the specific personal involvement of Markov in the occurrence of the catastrophe, in its consequences, in the death of so many people; thirdly: establishing the nature, limits and degree of his guilt in what happened in comparison with the degree of guilt of other participants in the process.
“And now, citizens of the judge, let me turn to an analysis of the circumstances of the accident, let me analyze all the navigation, technical and regulatory issues that need to be clarified to resolve the issue of the causes of the catastrophe and its actual perpetrators,” he said.
Then he gives an objective analysis of the navigation situation on the case materials. He cites the testimony of witnesses I. A. Gorbunov, P. A. Zubuka; refers to the testimony of Captain V.I. Tkachenko, given by him at the preliminary investigation and in court, to the “International Convention for the Prevention of Collisions of Ships at Sea”; gives the results of the navigational examination; reports the situation assessment specialist Yu. A. Peskov and others.
“ This is how the citizens of the judge look at the circumstances and the actual causes of the catastrophe, and you see how Markov was involved in this, and how the defendants are guilty in this matter.
And now let's look at the circumstances connected not with the occurrence, but with the possible prevention of an accident.
Among the main circumstances of Markov’s guilt in this regard, the prosecution considers his violation of Article 94 of the “Charter of Service on the vessels of the Ministry of the Navy”, which provides for the captain’s duty to be on the bridge of the capital at the entrance and exit of the port.
The prosecution believes that Markov left the captain’s bridge prematurely, that he should have been at his post before the overlapping of ships intersected.
It should be said that at first glance, the accusation looks somewhere convincing and even odious. How could it happen that the captain left the captain’s bridge of a passenger steamer carrying a large number of people? After all, it seems that Markov “left” the ship involuntarily, left him “unsupervised”, almost left him to “the fate of his will” ...
In fact, all this is not at all the case, and it is necessary to sort it out calmly and objectively, without sore imagination and without emotional evaluations and exaggerations. First of all, the captain Markov was on the captain's bridge when leaving the port and himself brought him to the port water area, paving the way for him, that is, he did as the Maritime Charter requires. Secondly, by the time Markov left and the shift of duty to the duty assistant dispatcher services of the PRDS, an agreement was reached and fully agreed with the captains of both vessels that the cargo ship Pyotr Vasev would miss the Admiral Nakhimov and give way to it.
And, finally, the first watch officer of the captain, Chudnovsky, who at that time was to change Markov on the watch on the night shift schedule of his shift, took over the watch.
Thus, Markov’s departure from the captain’s bridge took place in this case with full compliance with the requirements of the Navy Charter. The thing here, as you see, is not that Captain Markov was not on the captain's bridge at this time, but the fact is that he was not called to the bridge at a critical moment of an impending accident, was not timely warned by the navigator about the danger and only after a collision of ships, he could run to the bridge, quite unexpectedly facing the fact that the accident had already happened . ”
All other charges of Markov were considered in detail by the defense counsel, as well as the question of the technical condition of the Admiral Nakhimov steamer and the significance of this circumstance for deciding whether the defendants are guilty and responsible for it.
It should be borne in mind that often the defense and the prosecution hold opposing views on the same facts and evidence available in the case. A well-known Belgian lawyer Picard once wrote about this in his Paradox about a Lawyer. He noted that there are two lawyers on both sides of the judicial table, both worldly and professionally experienced, both endowed with special knowledge, both completely conscientious - why do each of them sincerely and with conviction about the same facts defend mutually exclusive views?
An interesting example of a different approach to evidence in accusatory and defensive speeches in the same case is given by the well-known lawyer L. S. Kiselev in his book, The Ethics of a Lawyer.
“ Muranov, accused of killing his wife, denied his guilt, claimed that she had committed suicide. Supporting the accusation, the prosecutor said in a speech: “Muranov firmly denies that he had the intention to kill his wife, denies the accusation that he was carrying the idea to kill her. “What a monstrous slander! - Muranov was outraged here. “I never thought of murder.” Fortunately for justice, these assurances of Muranov that the thought of killing his wife never originated is convincingly rejected by none other than Muranov himself. Muranov denounced Muranov. In fact there is his letter. It was presented to him, and he acknowledged that the letter was written by him. Here is what is written in the letter: “Galina’s behavior infuriates me! I know how it will end. I'll kill her! ”Hear Muranov? “I know how it will end. I will kill her! ”Or declare now that this letter is not yours, or do you no longer deny your intention to kill your wife?”
Lawyer Ouspensky, who defended Muranov, without disputing the accuracy of the quotation, said: “If we still need proof that Muran is innocent of the murder of his wife, then it suffices to recall the letter that the prosecutor considered irrefutable evidence. But we need to remember not only the letter itself, but also to whom it is addressed and when it is written. The letter is addressed to the mother of the deceased Muranova. And it was written two days before the tragic event. If Muranov had really intended a murder, and he had been prepared so long so that he could be made to believe that Galina Muranova had committed suicide, then let me ask you to think if he would give the hands of someone who wants revenge for a daughter so terrible a weapon against himself, would he, on the eve, repeat, on the eve of his wife's death, write to her mother, anticipating that he planned to murder her daughter? I wrote - it means I did not think to kill. Writing means hawala to minute irritation, knowing that this is the best way to get rid of it. I wrote - it means I did not kill . ”
Characteristics of the defendant.
The personality of the client plays a very important role in defensive speech. It allows to reveal the moral, ethical and socio-psychological mechanisms of the client’s behavior, helps the court and all those present in the hall take a fresh look at certain circumstances of the case.
The analysis of the motives of the committed crime or the substantiation of the absence of such motives is central to the personality characteristics of the client.
This thought was vividly and vividly expressed by F. N. Plevako in a defensive speech in the case of N. A. Lukashevich, accused of killing a stepmother:
“Wine is not the only one who intoxicates the human soul. Passions are also intoxicating: anger, enmity, hatred, jealousy, revenge and many others, among which there are even noble motives. Therefore, there is nothing more difficult than analyzing the soul and heart of a person. Here it is necessary to carefully analyze what kind of feeling is ingrained in the chest, where this feeling came from, when and how it developed. Of course, a reasonable person should avoid standing on such a road where he faces some danger. But here's what happens: sometimes this or that evil feeling is artificially developed even by the very persons against whom it is directed. In the Lukashevich case, it was remarkably clear how this feeling was sown by others; N. A. represented only the soil on which, with a generous hand, they threw various kinds of seeds, seeds of what could only oppress his soul. <...> The sword was brought to him by the father, his friends sharpened, the bad friends — the governess and the bonns, who brought every minute everything they needed to keep the sword from becoming blunt in his hands. <...> It is a rare case that the victim herself came, she was looking for opportunities to make a beast out of a person. ”
The task of the defender is to draw a truthful portrait of the defendant, to point out those aspects of his character that make it possible to better understand his behavior. It is necessary to highlight such personality traits of the client, which will help create a favorable impression about him.
In order to support his client, to somehow justify him, the speakers refer in their speech to the difficult life circumstances that the defendant faced, saying that he did not have sufficient education, general culture, professional experience, various mental disorders, illnesses, etc. P.
Describing his client, speakers often pay special attention to the judges on how a person behaved in a critical situation after the incident. Let us give an example from the speech of I. M. Kisenishsky in the case of VG Markov.
“ The psychological state and moral behavior of Markov immediately after the catastrophe is very significant. В объяснительной записке Правительственной Комиссии по расследованию обстоятельств катастрофы Марков писал: «Я глубоко переживаю эту трагедию и как капитан, и как человек. С момента, когда я оказался на берегу, я не могу спать и есть. Передо мной все время картина этой страшной катастрофы и человеческого горя. Анализируя происшедшие события, я спрашиваю себя — почему это произошло, все, ведь, было согласовано, я был уверен, что при малейшем изменении обстановки получу немедленную информацию от вахтенного помощника. Однако мне нельзя было ни на что надеяться, мне надо было, несмотря ни на что, оставаться на мостике, и, быть может, мой многолетний опыт помог бы избежать этой трагедии. В осмыслении всего происшедшего я самокритичен в оценке своих поступков»...
Посмотрите: ни малейшего оправдания, бескомпромиссная самокритичность, состояние глубокого психологического стресса, надлежащая нравственная оценка случившегося!
И еще один немаловажный момент, относящийся уже не только к человеческой, но и к профессионально-этической характеристике капитана Маркова.
According to Art. 106 Устава службы на судах морского флота, капитан корабля в случае катастрофы покидает судно последним.
Марков, как известно, находился на капитанском мостике до полного затопления судна. Он успел дать указания вахтенному помощнику спасти судовые документы и вахтенный журнал, дал команду членам экипажа и пассажирам покинуть судно, а сам вместе с кораблем ушел под воду последним...
Волею судеб он остался жив, был выброшен воздушной подушкой на поверхность, доплыл до ближайшего плота, втащил в него двух тонущих женщин, а затем подобрал еще несколько человек, которые были спасены им от неминуемойгибели...
Заповедь капитана, таким образом, Марков выполнил, он не нарушил святой капитанской традиции и ушел под воду вместе с потерпевшим катастрофу кораблем!Такова личность Маркова, его социальный, профессиональный и нравственный облик »
Заключение. Это одна из наиболее важных частей защитительной речи. Заключение речи должно быть по возможности кратким, но ярким, воспроизводящим основные положения защиты. В заключительной части подводятся итоги анализа фактических и юридических обстоятельств дела, формулируются окончательные выводы по делу, повторяется главная мысль зашиты. В этой части речи защитник обращается к суду с просьбой решить вопрос соответствующим образом (оправдать подсудимого, смягчить меру наказания, применить условное осуждение и т. п.). Конкретную меру наказания называть не рекомендуется. Довольно часто защитники в конце речи взывают к чувству справедливости и милосердия тех, от кого зависит постановление приговора.
« Граждане судьи!
В скором времени вы удалитесь на приговор, в котором будут решены все вопросы, связанные с обстоятельствами заслушанного вами дела, с судьбой причастных к нему лиц.
В нелегкой обстановке тяжелых переживаний людей, пострадавших от трагической катастрофы, в условиях неминуемых собственных переживаний вы сохраняли выдержку, терпение, высокую работоспособность, проявили глубокуюсосредоточенность и компетентность, большой такт и человеческое участие к горю людей, продемонстрировали стремление глубоко разобраться, понять и оценить обстоятельства этого трудного дела.
Всем понятна та большая человеческая трагедия, которая произошла в результате этой катастрофы, те беды и страдания, которые постигли потерпевших, потерявших своих близких и родных ...
Однако самой большой ошибкой в этом деле было бы стремление искать утешение этой человеческой трагедии в безумной и неоправданной мести, в искусственном создании улик, в тенденциозной трактовке обстоятельств, в.попытке покарать невиновных ...
Не утешение это, а глубокое человеческое заблуждение, неуважение к святой памяти погибших, пренебрежение к интересам правосудия, законности, справедливости!
Защита надеется, что такая ошибка не будет допущена и вопросы о доказанности конкретных эпизодов обвинения, степени причастности каждого подсудимого к событиям и обстоятельствам дела, вопросы индивидуализации ответственности и вины будут решены Верховным судом объективно, мудро и справедливо!» (Из речи И. М. Кисенишского по делу В. Г. Маркова)
4. Реплика
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 Types of court speeches
Часть 2 - Types of court speeches
Comments
To leave a comment
Rhetoric
Terms: Rhetoric