Assessment of the sufficiency of evidence by the judge when passing sentences based on the results of consideration of criminal cases with the participation of jurors

The relevance of this scientific research is determined by the positive dynamics of the development of domestic legislation towards the expansion of criminal cases under the jurisdiction of jurors. At the same time, the prevailing doctrinal attitude on the issue of assessing the sufficiency of evidence in sentencing, including expressed in the legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, is the most important factor influencing existing approaches in law enforcement activities in court proceedings with the participation of jurors. Accordingly, the significance of the appeal from the point of view of theory to the problems of regulatory regulation and law enforcement practice related to the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence by the presiding judge when deciding sentences based on the results of consideration of criminal cases with the participation of a jury is beyond doubt.

The purpose of this scientific research is to identify the problems of regulatory regulation and law enforcement practice related to the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence by the presiding judge when passing sentences based on the results of consideration of criminal cases with the participation of a jury, and to suggest ways to solve them.

The objectives of the study were: analysis of various scientific views in the theory of criminal procedure on the evaluation of evidence in a jury trial, including an appeal to the actual problem of standards of proof; statement of the existing ambiguous interpretation in the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the issue of evaluation of evidence in terms of their sufficiency in a jury trial; the study of the norms of the current criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation regulating the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence by the presiding judge when passing sentences based on the results of the consideration of a criminal case with the participation of a jury, depending on the type of jury verdict; the formation of their own position on these issues, as well as the formulation of author's proposals.

Methods: dialectical, formal-logical, legal-dogmatic, interpretation of legal norms, descriptive, deduction, generalization.

Results:

1. It is stated that there is a need to develop a unified doctrinal approach to the issue of assessing the sufficiency of evidence in a jury trial, including through a clear legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, refers the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence to the exclusive competence of jurors.
2. The importance of the existing procedural guarantees of the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is justified, allowing the presiding judge to independently establish the absence of signs of a crime in the act by assessing the sufficiency of evidence and to pass an acquittal even despite the guilty verdict of the jury.
3. The inconsistency of the legislative regulation of the grounds for acquittal is indicated based on the results of the assessment of the sufficiency of evidence by the presiding judge following the consideration of criminal cases with the participation of jurors in Part 5 of Article 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in which one of the grounds for the decision of the acquittal is not the evidence of the defendant's participation in the commission of a crime, whereas paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides a different formulation of the grounds for acquittal – the defendant is not involved in the commission of a crime.

1. [Doctrinal Model of Criminal Procedure Evidentiary Law of the Russian Federation and Comments to it] / Edited by A.S. Alexandrov. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2015. (In Russ.)]

2. Fiskevich S.V. [Assessment of the sufficiency of evidence in the proceedings in court with the participation of jurors]. Obshchestvo i pravo = Society and Law. 2012;1(38):199–203. (In Russ.)]

3. Bennett B.M. Evidence: clear and convincing proof: appellate review. California Law Review. 1944;(32).

4. Glover R., Murphy P. Murphy on Evidence. Oxford; 2013.

5. Keane A., McKeown P. The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford; 2012.

6. Kostenko R.V., Rudin A.V. Notion and meaning of evidence verification in criminal procedure. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2018;9(3):1011–1017.

7. Kostenko R.V., Yuriev G.Yu. The admissibility of statements provided by an accused person in the Russian criminal procedure. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2018;9(5):1684–1688.

8. Meyers A.B. Rejecting the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard for Proof of Incompetence. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997;(87):1016–1039.

9. Voskobitova L.A., Rossinskiy S.B. Issues cognition in modern criminal proceedings. Criminology Journal of Baikal National University of Economics and Law. 2015;9(1):13–143.