Procedural Significance of Explanations of Judges and Clarifications of Jurors in Criminal Proceedings

The relevance of the article lies in the fact that the explanation, as a source of information for making a decision on a particular issue arising in criminal proceedings, still has not been fully studied legal nature, which causes quite controversial issues in legal science and practice. But, in addition to the explanation, an explanation that has recently appeared in Russian criminal proceedings has a similar legal nature to it. In accordance with the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the court of appeal may hear explanations from persons who performed the duties of jurors on a number of issues that accompanied the verdict. At the same time, it is the right of a juror to give explanations to the court. At the same time, the judge to whom the challenge has been filed also has the right to give an explanation about the claimed challenge. The legislator has not resolved the question of what is the legal nature of the explanations and explanations in criminal proceedings given by the judge and the juror, and whether these sources of information are evidence.

The purpose of the article is to try to uncover the issues of using explanations and explanations of judges and jurors in modern criminal proceedings in order to identify problematic issues and offer them for discussion to the scientific community and practitioners.

Objectives: to study the evolution of the use of the theory of explanations and explanations of judges and jurors in criminal proceedings, the "catechon", its analysis and understanding in practice.

Methodology. The basis of this research is a combination of the universal dialectical method of scientific cognition, general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, and private scientific methods of cognition, such as: formal-logical, formal-legal. The authors also used methods of studying social phenomena in their concrete manifestation in specific conditions of place and time: the study of documents, observation, comparison.

The results of the study are distinguished by an applied nature with elements of scientific novelty. The authors considered the emerging difficulties associated with the practical implementation of the provisions of the use of explanations and explanations of judges and jurors.

Conclusions. The discussion of the identified problems will draw the attention of the legislator and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the development of solutions to eliminate the identified gaps in the criminal procedure legislation. _____________________

1. Konin A. V. Vliyanie pravovyh pozicij Evropejskogo suda po pravam cheloveka na formirovanie kriteriev dopustimosti dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [The influence of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights on the formation of criteria for the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings]. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2020, no. 3 (40), pp. 187–194.

2. Kukresh L., Asayonok B. Problemy ispol'zovaniya ob"yasnenij v kachestve istochnika dokazatel'stv v ugolovnom processe [Problems of using explanations as a source of evidence in criminal proceedings]. Yusticiya Belarusi = Justice of Belarus, 2015, no. 8 (161), pp. 31–34.

3. Sokolovskaya N. S., Chadnova I. V. K voprosu ob ispol'zovanii v dokazyvanii po ugolovnomu delu ob"yasnenij grazhdan [On the issue of the use of citizens' explanations in proving a criminal case]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 2017, no. 417, pp. 214–218.

4. Ovsyannikov I. V. Problema dokazatel'stvennogo znacheniya ob"yasnenij [The problem of the evidentiary value of explanations]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika = Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, 2016, no. 5, pp. 83–87.

5. Konin V. V., Sidorenko E. V., Suhankina L. I. Dokazatel'stvennoe znachenie ob"- yasnenij v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Evidentiary value of explanations in criminal proceedings]. Rossijskoe pravosudie = Russian Justice, 2021, no. 1, pp. 83–90.

6. Tregubova E. A. Osobennosti predstavleniya dokazatel'stv sudu pri ispolnenii prigovora sotrudnikami ugolovno-ispolnitel'noj sistemy [Features of presenting evidence to the court during the execution of a sentence by employees of the penal enforcement system]. Evrazijskij yuridicheskij zhurnal = Eurasian Legal Journal, 2022, no. 9 (172), pp. 357–359.

7. Konin V. V. Pravovaya priroda stadii ispolneniya prigovora [The legal nature of the execution stage of the sentence]. Advokat = Lawyer, 2015, no. 10, pp. 22–28.

8. Konin A. V. [Explanation as the basis of the information model of future interrogation]. Dopustimost' pokazanij v ugolovnom processe. Materialy Vserossijskogo kruglogo stola [Admissibility of testimony in criminal proceedings. Materials of the All-Russian Round Table]; ed. by L. A. Zashlyapin. St. Petersburg, Asterion Publ., 2021, pp. 49–53. (In Russ.)

9. Bagautdinov F. N. Aktual'nye voprosy pravovogo regulirovaniya oprosa prisyazhnogo zasedatelya [Topical issues of legal regulation of the juror's survey]. Mirovoj sud'ya = Justice of the Peace, 2022, no. 4, pp. 32–36

10. Kovtun N. N. Latentnaya dekonstrukciya kategorii "pokazaniya" v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii [Latent deconstruction of the category "testimony" in criminal proceedings in Russia]. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo = Criminal proceedings, 2021, no. 3, pp. 22–27.

11. Kalinovskij K. B. Pravo prisyazhnogo zasedatelya i sud'i na dachu poyasnenij [The right of the juror and the judge to give explanations]. Ugolovnyj process = Criminal proceedings, 2020, no. 10, p. 9.

12. Kolokolov N. A. Pravo prisyazhnogo zasedatelya dat' poyasneniya sudu apellyacionnoj instancii po voprosam predpolagaemogo narusheniya soveshchatel'noj komnaty [The right of a juror to give explanations to the court of appeal on issues of alleged violation of the advisory room]. Rossijskij pravovoj zhurnal = Russian Legal Journal, 2020, no. 4 (5), pp. 73–85.

13. Kolokolov N. A. Instrumenty proverki soblyudeniya tajny soveshchatel'noj komnaty v sude prisyazhnyh [Tools for checking compliance with the secrecy of the conference room in the jury trial]. Ugolovnyj process = Criminal process, 2021, no. 4, pp. 2–8.

14. Kal'nickij V. V., Sal'nikova T. I. Zaslushivanie v sudebnom sledstvii prisyazhnogo zasedatelya i sledovatelya: vozmozhna li analogiya? [Hearing a juror and an investigator in a judicial investigation: is an analogy possible?]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2021, no. 1, pp. 64–67.

15. Markovicheva E. V. Intellektual'nye sistemy podderzhki prinyatiya sudebnyh reshenij v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Intelligent decision support systems in criminal proceedings]. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i pravo = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law, 2021, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 97– 108.

16. Kolmogorova Yu. E. Prisyazhnyj zasedatel': dopros ili opros? [Juror: interrogation or questioning?]. NovaInfo.Ru,2023, no. 135, pp. 76–77.

17. Nasonov S. A. [Problems of implementation in judicial practice of the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on issues of proceedings in court with the participation of jurors]. Konstitucializaciya ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva (k 30-letiyu Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossijskoj Federacii). Sbornik materialov Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Constitutionalization of criminal proceedings (to the 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation). Collection of materials of the All-Russian Scientific and practical conference]; ed. by K. B. Kalinovskii. St. Petersburg, Asterion Publ., 2022, pp. 80–85. (In Russ.)

18. Ulanova Yu. Yu. Narushenie principa bespristrastnosti suda prisyazhnyh: rossijskaya i konvencionnaya praktika [Violation of the principle of impartiality of the jury trial: Russian and conventional practice]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2021, no. 4, pp. 40–47.

19. Cyganova A. Yu., Shigurov A. V. [Significant violations in the verdict]. Yunost'. Nauka. Kul'tura. Materialy IX Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Yunost. The science. Culture. Materials of the IX All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference]; ed. by G. P. Kuleshov (otv. red.), eds. Saransk, YurEksPraktik Publ., 2022, pp. 503–505. (In Russ.)

20. Kolokolov N. A. Instrumenty proverki soblyudeniya tajny soveshchatel'noj komnaty: prokurorskaya proverka ili opros (dopros) sudej s prisyazhnymi zasedatelyami v sude vtoroj instancii? [Tools for verifying compliance with the secrecy of the conference room: a prosecutor's check or a survey (interrogation) of judges with jurors in a court of second instance?]. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo = Criminal proceedings, 2021, no. 1, pp. 3–8.

21. Chirninov A. M. Yanus okazalsya odnolikim: argumentacionnyj analiz Postanovleniya Konstitucionnogo Suda Rossii ot 7 iyulya 2020 goda N 33-P v svete regulirovaniya doprosa prisyazhnyh za rubezhom [Janus turned out to be one-faced: argumentative analysis of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Russia of July 7, 2020 No. 33-P in the light of the regulation of jury interrogation abroad]. Sravnitel'noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie = Comparative Constitutional Review, 2021, no. 2, pp. 131–148.