Are the Lawyer, the Prosecutor and the Court Subjects of Evidence or Participants in Evidence in Criminal Proceedings?

Relevance. The article examines the issues of participation of a lawyer, prosecutor and court in proving in modern conditions of adversarial proceedings, within the framework of ongoing legal reform. The author comes to the conclusion that the subjects of proof in modern Russian criminal proceedings are only the investigator and the investigator, since they bear the burden of proof. At the same time, the lawyer, the prosecutor and the court are participants in the evidence, whose main task is to examine the evidence collected by the parties. At the same time, the court, being an impartial participant in criminal proceedings, should not take the initiative in collecting evidence and substantiating the accusatory thesis put forward and formulated by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage.

Objectives: to continue the consideration of issues arising at the present stage in the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings, and to propose a new gradation of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence, in continuation of the ongoing scientific discussion on the modern development of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings.

The purpose of the study is to identify and discuss problematic issues of the implementation of the mechanism of criminal evidence and propose a new list of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence in criminal proceedings.

Methodology. The methodological basis of the research was the universal dialectical method of cognition of socio-legal phenomena, general scientific research methods (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, system-structural and others). In addition, private scientific methods of cognition were used - logical–formal and system analysis.

The results of the study are distinguished by both theoretical and applied nature with elements of scientific novelty. The author considers the emerging difficulties associated with the practical implementation of the provisions of the issues of evidence in criminal proceedings, proposes a new list of subjects of evidence and participants in evidence, as well as a possible change in the established traditional scientific theory of evidence.

Conclusions. The discussion of the identified problems will allow drawing the attention of the scientific community and the legislator to the development of solutions to eliminate the identified gaps in criminal procedural evidence, a more detailed definition of the role of the court, prosecutor and lawyer in criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is suggested that the use of the approach proposed by the author, including the introduction of relevant provisions in criminal procedure legislation, will correct the imbalance in the theory of evidence that exists at the present stage.

1. Kitaev N. N. Nepravosudnye prigovory k smertnoj kazni: Sistemnyj analiz do-pushchennyh oshibok [Wrongful death sentences: A systematic analysis of the mistakes made]. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskij centr Press Publ., 2004. 390 p.

2. Rossinskij S. B. Neskol'ko slov o celi dokazyvaniya v sostyazatel'nom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [A few words about the purpose of proof in adversarial criminal proceedings]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2015, no. 10, pp. 31–34.

3. Rossinskij S. B. Ugolovno-processual'noe dokazyvanie – sovokupnost' poznavatel'noudostoveritel'nyh priemov i argumentacionno-logicheskih operacij [Criminal procedural proof - a set of cognitive and certifying techniques and argumentative and logical operations]. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii = Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2023, no. 1 (65), pp. 16–23.

4. Sovetskij ugolovnyj process [The Soviet criminal trial]; ed. by L. M. Karneeva, P. A. Lupinskaya, I. V. Tyrichev. Moscow, Yurid. lit. Publ., 1980. 568 p.

5. Smirnov A. V., Kalinovskij K. B. Ugolovnyj process: avtorskij kurs [Criminal procedure: author's course]. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2022. 368 p.

6. Teoriya dokazatel'stv v sovetskom ugolovnom processe [The theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal trial in two volumes]; ed. by N. V. Zhodin. Moscow, Yurid. lit., Publ., Vol. 1. 1966. 584 p.

7. Kokorev L. D., Kuznecov N. P. Ugolovnyj process: dokazatel'stva i dokazyvanie [Criminal procedure: evidence and proof]. Voronezh, Voronezh Univ. Publ., 1995. 272 p.

8. Strogovich M. S. Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa. T. 1. Osnovnye polozheniya nauki sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa [Strogovich M. S. Course of the Soviet criminal process. Vol. 1. Basic principles of the science of the Soviet criminal process]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1968. 468 p.

9. Pobedkin A. V. Ugolovno-processual'noe dokazyvanie [Criminal procedural proof]. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2009. 246 p.

10. Grigor'ev V. N., Pobedkin A. V. Nekotorye polozheniya teorii dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Some provisions of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings]. Vestnik MGOU. Seriya: Yurisprudenciya = Bulletin of the Moscow State University. Series: Jurisprudence, 2012, no. 2, pp. 24–29.

11. Kudryavceva A. V. Yavlyaetsya li ekspert sub"ektom dokazyvaniya [Is the expert a subject of proof]. Rossijskij sud'ya = Russian judge, 2005, no. 6, pp. 25–28.

12. Kudryavceva A. V., Velikosel'skij Yu. I. Bremya dokazyvaniya kak samostoyatel'naya pravovaya kategoriya v ugolovnom processe Rossii [The burden of proof as an independent legal category in the criminal process of Russia]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pravo = Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Law, 2004, is. 5, no. 11 (40), pp. 156.

13. Konin V. V., Korsakov K. A. Dokazyvanie i sub"ekty dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: pereocenka slozhivshihsya vzglyadov [Proving and subjects of proof in criminal proceedings: a reassessment of prevailing views]. Yuridicheskij vestnik Samarskogo universiteta = Legal Bulletin of Samara University, 2020, no. 6(2), pp. 81–85.

14. Chistova L. E. Sub"ekt v poznanii i dokazyvanii [The subject in cognition and proof]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2016, no. 3, pp. 189–193.

15. Chernikov S. V. O prave i sredstvah otdel'nyh uchastnikov ugolovnogo processa sobirat' dokazatel'stva [On the right and means of individual participants in the criminal process to collect evidence]. "Yurist-Pravoved" = Jurist-Pravoved, 2023, no. 2(105), pp. 188–193.

16. Zaharyan A. A. K voprosu o prokurore kak sub"ekte dokazyvaniya v dosudebnyh stadiyah otechestvennogo ugolovnogo processa [On the question of the prosecutor as a subject of evidence in the pre-trial stages of the domestic criminal process]. Rossijskij sledovatel' = Russian Investigator, 2020, no. 12, pp. 27–30.

17. Gorobec V. Zakonnost', obosnovannost' i spravedlivost' prigovora v usloviyah sostyazatel'nosti processa [Legality, validity and fairness of the verdict in the conditions of adversarial proceedings]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2003, no. 8, pp. 37–41.

18. Tetyuev S. V. O roli suda v dokazyvanii v sostyazatel'nom sudoproizvodstve [On the role of the court in proving in adversarial proceedings]. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice, 2020, no. 5, pp. 36–39.

19. Konin V. V., Yalyshev S. A. Ocenka sudom versij storon pri rassmotrenii ugolovnogo dela po sushchestvu kak faktor vyneseniya zakonnogo i obosnovannogo resheniya. Rossijskoe pravosudie = Russian justice, 2020, no. 7, pp. 81–87.

20. Kozyavin A. A., Ryabinina T. K., Snegireva D. E. Differenciaciya ugolovno-processual'noj formy: sushchnost', istoriya i perspektivy razvitiya, problemy processual'nogo osmysleniya [Differentiation of the criminal procedure form: the essence, history and prospects of development, problems of procedural understanding]. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i pravo = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law, 2019, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 92–104.

21. Konin A. V., Konin V. V. [On the issue of putting forward investigative versions (theses)]. Kriminalistika – nauka bez granic: tradicii i novacii. Materialy Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii [Criminalistics – science without borders: traditions and innovations. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference]; ed. by A. V. Bachieva, E. V. Lantuh, O. S. Lejnova. St. Petersburg, St.-Petersburg Univ. of the Russian Interior Ministry Publ., 2020, pp. 132–136. (In Russ.)