The speech that was made I.D. Braude in defense of the accused in the murder of A.I. Markov.
Fellow Judges! This case is quite unusual these days, both thematically and socially. Murder or suicide - did Anya Lytkina commit suicide herself or was Anatoly Markov stabbed her to death? - this is the question that stands before you and awaits your permission.
Before presenting my point of view, I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the peculiarities of the present case.
During these days I watched with great emotion the picture of human relations unfolding before us. We listened to the witnesses interrogated by the court, and a corner of life was revealed before us, so unusual and so unlike our everyday Soviet life.
We observed here an amazing frivolity in the relations of people to each other. We heard about treachery, about deceit, saw an unacceptable attitude towards the family, towards marriage, towards moral obligations towards friends. We have heard here about phenomena that are not typical of our time and alien to the Soviet people. It sometimes seemed to me that we were participating in the analysis of some case in the spirit of the tabloid novels of the distant past, with their "burning passions", unbridled jealousy, nightmarish murders and suicides. All this is so far from us, and I want to believe that it will never happen again, and these relations are just a distorted mirror of human relations and they arose somewhere in the backyard of our life, contrary to the morality of the new, Soviet society, as a contrast to the appearance of Soviet people. Naturally, only against the background of such a life, alien to the Soviet people, such relations, suicides and similar tragic cases can occur.
Listening to the prosecutor's speech, especially the second part, I felt some anxiety, because, perhaps, imperceptibly for himself, the prosecutor replaced the missing evidence with a completely natural feeling of antipathy towards the moral character of the defendant that arose during this case. This is a great danger for the correct solution of the case. Of course, Markov does not cause sympathy. But it would be terrible for Soviet justice if the evidence missing in the case were replaced by a feeling of antipathy towards the defendant, if the lack of evidence or their weakness were filled by the desire to isolate him at all costs and the desire to expel him from society, because he is a morally licentious person. .
I am convinced, however, that even if such a mood was reflected in the prosecutor's speech, it cannot in any way be reflected in the court's verdict. From the Soviet court, no matter what the defendant is, no matter what negative feelings he may arouse in himself, we have the right to expect exact and concrete implementation of the Soviet law, which requires that a person be convicted only when proven guilty, regardless of what he is, even if he was corrupted to the core. It is important that the defendant committed the crime or did not commit it. And this alone should decide his fate in our court.
I would also like to tell the prosecutor. In his speech, he was extremely critical of the decision by which this case was once terminated. However, I must note that I did not find any more convincing motives in the decision to reopen the case.
It is characteristic that both the indictment in this case and the accusatory speech of the prosecutor are essentially argued by the same thing - the testimony of the same Kislova.
Kislova is the only witness in the case who is cited here this way and that, and whom they believe in one thing, but do not believe in another, agree with her in one, and reject her testimony in another.
The whole trouble is that the accusation has nothing else in essence, and everything else is conversations, reasoning, sometimes not devoid of wit and imagery, psychological digressions, which we will talk about a little later. First of all, there is no factual material on the main point of the case, that is, that the knife with which Lytkina was mortally wounded was taken by Markov and that he stabbed her to death.
Here on this cardinal issue there is no evidence.
You, Comrade Prosecutor, again refer to the testimony of Kislova. But you forgot that, in essence, Kislova is here only a formal witness, that not so long ago she was a co-defendant in this case, that she was in prison with Markov, and that, being accused, she, naturally, testified with the sole purpose of not to be caught in the fact that the knife fell into the hands of Lytkina through her fault.
She testified as a co-defendant, interested in excluding her involvement in Lytkina's suicide. She was also interrogated for a long period as Markov's accomplice in the murder of Anya. Lytkina, and, of course, that after her release from prison and interrogation after the termination of the case, she could not but confirm the testimony she had already given earlier. She gives them now and will continue to give these testimonies, as she is afraid of going to prison again. The prison is too memorable for her, as are the calls to the investigator, the interrogations and the expectation of the trial.
Hence the inevitable and irreconcilable contradictions in her testimony. Therefore, they must be treated with the greatest care. Her slander cannot but give rise to the most serious doubts, because, I repeat, she is here only formally a witness, but in fact she is just as interested a person as Markov.
That is why for me, who, together with you, observed her cheeky manner of testifying and her feigned calmness, it was completely clear that she was telling a lie, and precisely in those moments that are very dangerous for her. This becomes quite obvious, especially when comparing her testimony during the investigation and in court with the explanations that she gave when she was not yet sure that she would be arrested, when, under the fresh impression of what had happened, she did not have the opportunity to think over the situation and prepare. to set behavior.
Remember the testimony of those people she encountered immediately after Anya Lytkina's death: ambulance doctor Meshcherinova, Krashenkov's neighbor, and Zuev, an operative of the criminal investigation department. They all showed the same thing on this occasion both at the investigator's and here in court, although none of them had known each other before. And you, Comrade Prosecutor, seem to have forgotten about the existence of these testimonies and did not pay attention to the fact that they are completely
coincide with the testimony of Markov, who had never even heard of the existence of these persons before.
You cannot, Comrade Prosecutor, fail to understand the full significance of the testimonies of these witnesses, and meanwhile you have forgotten about them. You didn't summon any of them to court, you didn't even mention them in the indictment. You didn't call people who told about Kislova's first sincere, yet unprepared and unprepared explanations about what happened in her room on the evening of November 27, 1947.
Three questions, Comrade Judges, are now before you. First, could the knife be in Markov's hand, that is, did he take the knife and commit the murder? Second, did he have motives for such a murder? Third - did Anya Lytkina have motives for suicide?
The answers to these three questions decide the matter. But in essence, the answer to one first question decides the matter: did Markov really take a knife in Kislova's room and rush at Lytkina with it?
The comrade prosecutor says that on this point there are no contradictions in Kislova's testimony, except for the little things he noted in his speech.
In fact, even in such testimony of Kislova, which are being investigated, when they are compared, such contradictions are found that are striking in their logical inconsistency and obviously absurd statements. Both at the investigator’s and here, Kislova testified that as soon as she approached the closet, Anya jumped out of it with a cry of “scoundrel!”, And she began to cover the closet and therefore did not see what was happening behind her, and could not see how Markov grabbed buffet knife.
But how could it be so? Why did you need to close the closet? After all, there was nothing in the closet, it was empty, because everything had been taken out of it in advance,
All this provocation was thought out and prepared in advance by Kislova. She had no reason to close the empty closet at the moment when, according to her, Anya jumped out of it with a cry of “scoundrel!”. The natural movement of a person, when a woman tormented by jealousy jumps out of the closet with such a cry, it would be instant, without losing sight of her for a second, to turn around. Kislova claims that she did not see what happened, because, closing the closet, she stood with her back to Markov and Lytkina. Nonsense! She saw everything, knows everything perfectly, but does not want to tell.
Kislova says that Markov could, sitting on the sofa, reach out and snatch a knife from the sideboard, and that he knew when she visited her where she usually puts this knife. Remember the testimony of witness Bokova: after drinking and snacks, a few hours before the tragic event, one of them - she or Kislova - put this knife on the table. It is absurd to assume that Markov, in a fraction of a second, while Kislova opened or closed the cabinet (which I don’t believe in), could orient himself and grab a knife from the cupboard, which, by the way, was closed, and even if it was ajar, then everything but it was necessary to open the cupboard door. And he had to do all this with such speed that Kislova could not see it!
The absurdity of such an assumption, it seems to me, is obvious. The prosecutor left this point in some doubt, saying that the knife should have been in plain sight. But if in plain sight, then it is all the more likely that Anya Lytkina could have taken it from the table even before she hid in the closet. Remember the testimony of the witness Krashenkov, who, having found Kislova next to the corpse of Anya Lytkina, asked her where the knife was? She replied that the knife was on the table. And, finally, compare the moment during which, according to Kislova, Markov could take the knife, with the undoubtedly longer period of time that Lytkina had at her disposal, when Kislova went to the front door and opened it for Markov, who was rising in it's time for the stairs.
The investigative experiment, to which the comrade prosecutor refers, arguing that Kislova's absence lasted 20-30 seconds, causes me natural doubts, even if the investigator ran quickly during this experiment. But even with this calculation, Anya Lytkina had enough time to take the knife before Kislova returned to the room.
Is it possible, in this state of affairs, to seriously assert that Markov took the knife at the moment when Kislova could not see it, and then rushed at Lytkina with the knife?
Quite naturally, the prosecutor paid much attention to the question of the motives present in this case. You tried, Comrade Prosecutor, in this matter also to go by excluding those who could have had motives for wanting Lytkina dead, and to prove that only Markov could have them. What motives for the murder of Lytkina did you discover in Markov?
You said that he was entangled in his love affairs, that he needed to cut this knot, this entourage of three women, and that the murder of Lytkina arose from this desire. But at the same time, another version arose here that Markov wanted to marry Tatyana Kislova and therefore Anya Lytkina, who was Tatyana's rival, interfered with him and, having become close to Kislova, he decided to remove this obstacle by murder. Is it vital?
I have already said to which moral and intellectual type of people I attribute Markov. His approach to women is characteristic of this type of people. He is a shallow, superficial and essentially indifferent person. He was attracted to these girls, who were passing before us on business, not by genuine feeling, not by love, but by the habit of promiscuous relationships, based, perhaps, not so much on a stormy temperament as on sexual promiscuity. Therefore, leaving one for another or cohabiting simultaneously with them, he does not experience any internal struggle or conflicts. He is not touched by the worries and experiences of the mistresses he leaves. Their tears don't bother him. Remember his story about how, when he saw that Tatyana and Anya were standing and talking at the gates of his house and both were crying, he tried to get rid of them and leave as soon as possible. He easily moves from passion to passion, from one shallow passion to another, without even experiencing real tides of passion. Without worrying or worrying, he remains essentially cold and internally alien to his girlfriends. He floats on the surface of life without delving into it and without analyzing it.
Leaving one and moving on to another woman is not an event for him that could excite him and cause him to take any decisive action, any romantic or risky actions. There is no need for Markov to cut some kind of knot, as the prosecutor claims. Both rivals are crying, Anya and Tatyana! - it doesn't touch him. He calmly leaves. Nothing prevents him from having lunch with Anya Lytkina during the day, holding her in his arms, and two hours later, following a note from Tatyana, rushing to her apartment, assuring her that she is the only one he has.
Can such a person kill Anya in order to connect with Tatiana? Was Anya any serious obstacle for him, especially since then his promises to marry Tatyana were no more real than the same ardent assurances to Anya? With any point of view on Markov, the traits of his character and his attitude towards a woman categorically exclude the motive put forward by the prosecutor for killing Lytkina by him.
The prosecutor, along with the assertion that Markov's murder of Lytkina was of an “impulsive” nature, put forward a version of the murder on purpose.
Let's try to take this obviously vicious path.
Could Markov have planned the murder in advance? Remember that, on his way to Tatyana, he not only did not know that Anya would be there, but he was afraid of it, he was obviously afraid of scenes, reproaches and, in general, unnecessary anxiety. And when he came to Tatyana's room, he first of all asked her if Anya was there, and, not believing her, he examined both rooms himself. This circumstance is equally confirmed by Markov and Kislova. This one moment excludes any thought of premeditation.
And, further, the appearance of Anya from the closet at the moment of his love assurances and promises to Tatyana was completely unexpected and stunning for him. Could at that moment have appeared the thought that pleased the prosecutor so much: “cut the knot with three women”, the closeness with whom he allegedly weighed down? But the prosecutor, as I have already pointed out here, is also inconsistent in this case, since then he again switches to the idea of "impulsiveness." And at the same time he says that Anya’s unexpected appearance from the closet and her cry “scoundrel!” created a situation in which Markov "had no other choice" than to kill her. But why? Does Comrade Prosecutor really think that the cry of "scoundrel!" was such a strong blow to pride that he could cause only one reaction in Markov - a stab.
Such a point of view of the prosecutor does not harmonize at all, does not fit in with the whole moral character and mental makeup of Markov. I think that during his frivolous life, Markov was scolded and reproached by the women he deceived a lot. And it is unlikely that he, who has already experienced imprisonment, a mature person with significant life experience, is able to react so sharply to such troubles. No, such desperate outbursts are not characteristic of Markov, they are not in his character, and he had no reason for them.
The inconsistency of the prosecutor's positions on this issue is also reflected in another aspect. When the prosecutor proved the correctness of closing the case of Kislova, who had previously been accused of conspiring with Markov to kill Lytkina, he very vividly spoke here about the fact that it would be stupid to kill by conspiracy in a populated apartment, in broad daylight, with a clear prospect of immediate exposure.
But let me ask you, Comrade Prosecutor, don't the same considerations apply to Markov? If he decided to kill, why would he do it in the same inhabited apartment, in broad daylight and also under the threat of immediate arrest? Is it the instinct of self-preservation and an elementary sense of caution that exist only with the conspiracy of two and are absent in lone killers? Wouldn't such a murder be extremely "stupid" in this case, in your own words? Where is the logic?
And there is only one conclusion from all this - Markov did not and could not have any motives for the murder of Anya Lytkina.
Did Lytkina have motives for suicide?
The comrade prosecutor said here that all suicides are necessarily mentally ill, but meanwhile Lytkina did not show any signs of mental illness.
Kraft-Ebing defended this point of view of the prosecutor about the obligatory connection between suicide and mental illness, but it has long been rejected by our advanced Soviet forensic psychiatry.
In our country, any social and economic prerequisites for suicide have long since disappeared. Cases of suicide are isolated, and we hear about them less and less. Meanwhile, in pre-revolutionary times, especially during the years of reaction, and in the capitalist countries quite often even now, cases of suicide were observed and are observed so often that sometimes they turn into a social phenomenon. The living conditions and social relations in most capitalist countries explain why this is the case.
We know that even now in many countries there are frequent cases of suicide due to unemployment, hunger, and a joyless life. The collapse of the family and the destruction of its inner harmony, characteristic of bourgeois marriage, are often due to prosaic and selfish interests. It is also often the cause of violent death by one's own hand. And, finally, the feeling of loneliness and hopelessness in these conditions, a feeling usually not familiar to a Soviet person who lives in a collective and is soldered by the collective, gave birth and gives birth to the idea of suicide. But at the same time, statistics knows many cases when suicide is the result of a general shock caused by a feeling of unbearable resentment, despair, jealousy, and even passionate unsatisfied love.
I will be told that such reasons for suicide are not typical for our era, for purposeful Soviet people. There is no doubt about this, and I have already said that such cases are very rare and that we hear about them less and less. But I also spoke about the fact that fate brought Anya Lytkina into contact with such people, with such an environment that is not at all like the life of our Soviet youth. The life that passed here in front of us is an empty and aimless life, all its interests were concentrated around dancing, love affairs, changing gentlemen and mistresses, drinks and snacks.
Is it possible that of all this group, Anya Lytkina had the most integral character? Yes, it's possible. We heard testimony here about what her feelings for Markov were. She truly loved him, suffered from his inconstancy and painfully experienced the thought of the possibility of a complete break with him.
The prosecutor, referring to the testimony of Anya's mother, sought to prove that this love had already passed, since once Anya told her mother that she had driven Markov away. Yes, perhaps there was such a case, but it was only a temporary quarrel, after which she returned to him again and with even greater feeling and affection. Anya's mother said here that her daughter was cheerful, that she never talked about suicide. Does this mother's statement have any meaning? Adult daughters do not always tell their mother the truth about their intimate experiences, and, finally, a woman's cheerfulness does not always eliminate the depth of her vulnerability under the influence of severe mental trauma and experiences.
So it was in this case. Painfully loving Markov, Lytkina is very worried about the very thought of the possibility of a break with him. Remember the testimony of Bokova, who was close to Anya and Tatyana, and earlier herself was Markov's mistress. Even at the preliminary investigation, she testified: “Even before that, Anya told me at the dance that if Anatoly did not live with her, then she would not live in the world either.” Yesterday in court, Bokova confirmed these words of Anya and told about another case, when, shortly before the tragic end, Anya told her that she could not imagine how she could live without Markov. But at that time, a rival appeared on her path - Tatyana Kislova, who persistently and resolutely stood between her and Markov, challenging her rights to him. We understand the feelings that Anya experienced - the fear of losing a loved one, a burning feeling of jealousy and offended pride, and Tatyana Kislova stirred up these feelings with her shameless behavior in front of her eyes.
Usually, when there is a suspicion that death was due to suicide, the investigating authorities are interested in whether the suicide has expressed thoughts of suicide before. You, Comrade Prosecutor, while portraying Anya Lytkina as a more cheerful and balanced woman, never once mentioned in your speech that such statements are vivid in this case. You didn't say a word about them, as if they didn't exist. And yet such statements are more than enough. They were discussed during the investigation and in court. Kislova herself spoke about them. In vain you prefer to remain silent about this part of her testimony. After all, these testimonies speak of the strength of Anya's feelings for Markov and of her feelings and connection with this.
Bokova warned Kislova that Markov was visited by his legal wife with a child, that she, Bokova, was close to him herself, and that now he is close to Anya Lytkina. And all this, as Kislova herself admitted in court, had no effect on her. And we see that she persistently seeks his feelings, and, having met Anya at the gate of the house where Markov lived, she has a frank conversation with her, in which Anya tells her: “Because of him, I became ill, I myself will not live and I will kill him." And a little later, when they were both heading to Kislova’s apartment, Anya said: “Today I will celebrate the wedding, and tomorrow they will bury me.” This phrase of Ani in the second part of it turned out to be prophetic.
Let's compare all this and draw a conclusion.
From the moment when Lytkina began to doubt the sincerity of Markov’s relationship to her and when she developed a fear of the possibility of a break, the thought of suicide flashed through her mind, taking on more and more distinct forms.
The meeting with Kislova at the gates of Markov's house was fatal for her. She came face to face with her rival, impudent and persistent, but she still believed in her own strength and in her power over Markov. And when Tatyana began to cry, Lytkina, according to Bokova’s testimony, told her: “Your tears are in vain, you are to blame for everything, since you knew that I live with Anatoly, and as I lived, I will live with him.” And then Kislova called her to her apartment.
Why did she call Anya to her? What was the conversation between them? We know nothing about this, or rather, we know only from the words of Kislova. But we know from Kislova's note to Markov, which is in the file, that she called him to her even before meeting with Anya. She knew that Markov might come to her that same evening. Consequently, her plan of action included pushing them both in her room, making Anya humiliated, insulted, pushing her away from Markov, and maybe, who knows? - She then had a diabolical calculation in her thoughts that Anya's words about the funeral really turned out to be prophetic.
This, as we have seen here, strong-willed, persistent and insidious girl could create special conditions for such a realization.
Let us recall that even before the note with which she summons Markov was written, Kislova, together with Bokova, arranges a small world for themselves; she gives Bokova 50 rubles, and the latter buys 400 grams of vodka, which these two young girls drink on the spot. Over a drink, Markov's former and current mistresses are talking about him, about his inconstancy and about his relationship with Anya Lytkina.
During a conversation over drinks and snacks, a strange episode occurs, which Bokova showed to the investigator and told in some detail here: Kislova thoughtfully took this very knife from the table and ran it with the tip over her hand so that she left a white scratch. Bokova asked her what that meant. And Kislova answered: "No one can be trusted." After that, one of them put a knife on the table, who exactly - they both do not remember.
But let us return to the arrival of Anya Lytkina to Kislova.
The prosecutor blindly believes everything that Kislova finds it convenient to show. He trustingly repeats Kislova's story that the initiative to hide in the closet belonged to Anya, not Kislova, and that the idea of hearing from the closet a conversation between Tatyana and Markov also belonged to Lytkina. The prosecutor also believes that Lytkina allegedly hesitated where to hide, and in this regard I have the right to ask Kislova: “Why was the closet empty? Why did you free him from things beforehand?” And I would have been forced to answer her: “Because you prepared this provocation in advance. You knew perfectly well that Anya lives with Markov. Only an hour before she told you that she would continue to live with him. Only an hour before, she had said that she loved him and could not imagine life without him. And you are plotting a diabolical plan. You persuade her to hide in a closet and from there hear how a person close to her, whom she considers her husband, declares his love to you. You yourself provoke this conversation: you ask Markov with whom he will live - with you or with Anya. For a loving woman locked in a closet, you arrange a real torture.
Having received an answer from Markov: “Only with you, only you, I don’t love her,” you demand: “So tell her that yourself!” - and you run to the closet and open the door. What could be more disgusting than such an act?
With what anguish, with what mental trauma Anya Lytkina jumped out of the closet! Anxiety had been building up in her for several days in a row. Her words that she will not live without Markov, that she will kill herself and him, the conversation at the funeral - all this testifies to the internal discord that had already begun in her and thoughts of suicide.
The provocation arranged by Kislova was the last straw that overflowed the cup of Anya's experiences. Markov's words addressed to her rival, heard by her from the closet, were a heavy blow to the offended feeling, an unbearable insult and the destruction of her hopes. The growing thought of suicide, under the terrible impression of what had happened, was realized.
For a woman of this type, for a representative of the environment that I have already characterized, this was a psychologically understandable way out. For Tatyana, this was the desired exit, which she prepared, going towards her goal in cruel and vile ways.
Lytkina jumped out of the closet with a knife in her hand and shouted in a terrible voice: "Scoundrel!" - as Markov always and everywhere showed the same way. But Kislova also told the first people who asked her in the room where the deceased had not yet cooled down, she told the ambulance doctor Meshcherinova, neighbor Krashenkov and the agent of the criminal investigation department Zuev that Anya stabbed herself and that the knife was earlier on the table.
Yes, of course it was. And the fact that you, Kislova, being brought to justice and arrested, began to give different testimonies that you saw Anatoly and Anya waving their hands as if they were fighting, or as you show in another place: “their hands were over their heads ' is quite understandable. You essentially set the stage for suicide and slipped her a knife, leaving it on the table before she hid in the closet. Or maybe you just handed her this knife. And involuntarily, at the same time, I again want to ask you why, two hours before Anya and Markov came to you, you tried the knife blade on your hand? Remember another thing that Markov insists on, but you say that you don’t remember - why, as soon as Markov came to you, and Anya was already in the closet, did you lock the door of your room? What for? The answer involuntarily suggests itself - you did it because you were afraid that he would not run away when Anya appeared. You cut off his escape route. And when he pulled the knife out of the wound on Anya's chest, you began to take away this knife from him, you tried to simulate an attempted suicide. This is exactly how Markov understood you and, without giving you a knife, he threw it into the open window. It was a natural and understandable move on his part.
The prosecutor here attached great importance to the issue: after ten or fifteen or more minutes, Markov called an ambulance. I do not quite understand why so much attention was paid to this moment. Markov behaved exactly as a man, shocked by horror, not guilty of murder, behaves. Seeing that Anya had fallen, he, drawing a knife, on which there were traces of blood and bread, rushes to her, picks up her dress, looks for a wound, and then, running out into the corridor, shouts: “Where the phone is, they killed themselves there, I’m to blame for everything! ". This is not the cry of a killer, but of a man who for a moment felt all his moral responsibility for what happened, all the emptiness and ugliness of his life, his actions. He realized in those moments that he was also to blame for the death of the girl who loved him, and perhaps this cry was at the same time a natural outburst of his own moral condemnation, consciousness of his guilt before the deceased and before the Soviet collective. And if so, then this cry: "I'm to blame for everything!" - says that in Markov's soul the bright movements of the heart are still preserved, which is not all lost for him.
The prosecutor asked: why did Markov change his clothes at home after that? And everyone else in his place would change clothes. For him, as for everyone in his place, it was clear that if he was in the room where the corpse of a woman with a fatal wound in the chest was found, he could not escape detention and investigation.
From the first interrogation by the investigator to the end of the trial, Markov told everything in the same way, without changes and without memory lapses. He told the truth that Anya jumped out of the closet with a knife in her hand and stabbed herself in front of him and Kislova. And Kislova told the truth only to those who first entered her room when she was lying next to the dead Lytkina. And then she lied, cheated, dodged. She claimed she did not see who had the knife, but saw Markov and Anya waving their arms as if they were fighting. And here experts come to the aid of justice, who have established that Lytkina's wound could have been inflicted both by an outside hand and by her own. At the same time, the examination states that no signs of a struggle were found anywhere on the body of the deceased, which would be quite natural if what Kislova describes happened between her and Markov.
The speech of the prosecutor is entirely based on the contradictory testimony of Kislova, and then conclusions, conclusions and assumptions follow. With such evidence, you demand that Markov be convicted of a murder allegedly committed by him three years ago, after the case was dismissed and nothing new was obtained by an additional investigation against Markov ! You appealed for severe punishment and ended your speech with a mention of our beautiful capital, our bright life and a joyful May day.
Yes, you are right, Comrade Prosecutor. We live in an era when it is joyful to live in our country. We live not only in the present, but also in faith in an even more joyful future. Our sun shines brightly above us. There is no need to darken this sunny day and our conscience by demanding an unjust verdict.
I ask for Markov's acquittal.
Low qualifications, violations of lawyer ethics, deals with the investigation to the detriment of the client - these and many other unattractive circumstances cause an increasingly ambiguous attitude towards lawyers in Russian society
In the middle of the 19th century in Russia they were called barristers, now they are called lawyers. In Soviet times, in the specific conditions of the administration of justice, there was no special trust in lawyers, as people who are not always free in their actions, however, the change in the political system, with the proclamation of democratic principles for the administration of justice, a skeptical view of lawyers in this category, unfortunately, didn't change. In the old days it was said that a lawyer never loses, and his clients - quite often, but to this day they continue to say so. Like it or not, you agree with it. And why such a negative attitude towards the entire lawyer corporation? Apparently, from the content of life, which, by the very fact, puts good and bad in their places.
Reducing the level of qualification of lawyers
In recent years, the percentage of acquittals in criminal cases, and lawyers often work in trials of this kind, has sharply decreased, which could not but negatively affect the authority of the institution of the bar as a whole. Since the beginning of the application of a special procedure for the consideration of criminal cases, the statistics of acquittals, already low, has decreased significantly. Our citizens began to lose confidence in the usefulness of legal assistance in criminal cases in the domestic territory, began to doubt the possibility of providing real protection of their legitimate rights and interests. Dissatisfied Russians, almost en masse, are applying for a fair decision to the European Court, where more and more criminal cases from Russia fall apart, and convictions of Russian courts are canceled.
However, the problem is not only, and probably not so much, that our courts and the public prosecution ignore the defense in order to deliberately issue unjust sentences that punish the innocent. There are objective reasons that have no direct connection with the "punitive, inquisitorial justice" about which homegrown oppositionists love to gossip.
One of them is the low qualification of lawyers. The number of people wishing to obtain the legal status of a lawyer is increasing every year. Russian universities and their branches, among whose faculties the law continues to be the most coveted for applicants, give a "start in life" to thousands of semi-finished students who call themselves, on the basis of a diploma, lawyers. Many of them want to be lawyers, understanding this not as a noble vocation, but as a profitable craft that allows them to "make" big money, and even overflow with pride from the realization that human destinies are in your hands. It is not easy to pass the exams, which is not easy to get the required status, but it is quite possible with superficial knowledge, but with "deep pockets". Hence the insufficient qualifications of the members of bar associations.
In some Russian regions there are not enough lawyers: their total number does not reach the recommended 0.1% of the population. But in other subjects there is too much lawyers, and many of them, sadly, are incompetent. And if we assume that only the so-called "status" lawyers are working on criminal cases (not for their intended purpose), then the rest of them live on bread and water, grabbing everything in a row, without even understanding anything about the cases they take on. That is why lawyers very often lose, for example, arbitration proceedings, because in arbitration one must be a specialist. General lawyers in all areas of the law most often understand equally poorly.
Perhaps everyone understands how dubious a lawyer is who is ready to take on everything - from theft of a bicycle to conducting a process at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. But not many people think about the fact that it is better not to contact a lawyer who does not speak well (tongue-tied), and writes even worse. A tongue-tied defender in court will most likely not find understanding, and a poorly drafted document is difficult to read on its own, and grammatical and spelling errors can cause a judge’s negative attitude towards an illiterate lawyer, and therefore towards his client. But it is precisely such professional disadvantages of lawyers that are the result of a lack of education and culture.
And the reputation of the legal education, in which the defender is a member, should not be overestimated - the interests of a person in court will be protected not by it, but by a specific specialist. Therefore, it is his professionalism, reputation and decency that are important for the successful resolution of the case. Today in Russia there are three forms of legal entities: collegium, bureau and office. Bar associations inspire more confidence, but you need to know that they are usually created by several lawyers who have achieved some success and have their own clientele. In addition to the founding fathers, most of the collegium's employees are young professionals with no work experience and regular customers. It is known that a lawyer progresses professionally only in a team of highly qualified lawyers (not lower than his own), but experienced "fighters", in the face of fierce competition in the legal services market, do not care about young people. "Rookies" are usually loaded with a bunch of tasks, making them "errand boys (and girls)". There can be no talk of any progress in such relationships. At the same time, every venerable lawyer is afraid of a trick from his peers, the same "bison" as himself, which leads to a certain self-isolation in matters of practice that disgustingly affects the results of his professional activity. That is, the young are not getting smarter, and the old cadres, I beg your pardon, are getting dumber.
Integrity and Fraud 
Good lawyers are extremely careful about their own reputation. These people are widely known, and they carry out their professional duties carefully, although their rates are often unreasonably high. But to recalculate such "promoted names", both on a federal scale and at the regional level, fingers are enough. Lawyers from the second echelon, and the overwhelming majority of them, also try to take a lot of money for doing business, but they provide legal services at an amateurish level, which, in fact, is pseudo-help. This is especially true in criminal cases. There are many cases when a lawyer promised a full acquittal or a suspended sentence, but in fact did not begin to do anything, only talked about various "pitfalls and currents", said that the court had already made a decision a long time ago, which is very difficult to influence, at the same time, he continued to take money without a twinge of conscience, receiving them not for his work on defense, but simply for his presence, sitting out court sessions without the slightest chance of influencing the fate of the defendant. Such shameful actions of lawyers are an indelible stain on the concept of "lawyer ethics".
The federal law on advocacy and advocacy contains a number of provisions that guide lawyers to the implementation of moral and ethical rules and moral norms. The law, formulating the duties of a lawyer, establishes that he is obliged to honestly, reasonably and in good faith defend the rights and legitimate interests of the principal by all means not prohibited by the legislation of the Russian Federation. An applicant for the status of a lawyer, who has successfully passed the qualifying examination, takes an oath, where there are the words: "I solemnly swear to honestly and conscientiously perform the duties of a lawyer." Taking an oath is not a simple formality: only after pronouncing the words of the oath does the applicant receive the status of a lawyer and become a member of the Chamber of Lawyers. The text of the oath combines two most important principles of advocacy work: legality and professional morality. One is unthinkable without the other, and both are in constant unity.
In fact, the facts of violations of lawyer ethics by lawyers happen all the time. In theory, with the entry into force of the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Bar in the Russian Federation" and the adoption of the Code of Professional Ethics for a lawyer, "criminal protection" should undergo fundamental changes, but it is still far from clearing the ranks of the bar from individual unscrupulous representatives of it. Violations of lawyer ethics sometimes develop into real crimes. One of the most dangerous crimes, which, unfortunately, has recently become widespread in criminal proceedings, is fraud committed by unscrupulous representatives of the legal community.
A typical example is the appropriation of money or property by the perpetrators under the pretext of giving a bribe to an official. Let's take last year's example. In the case of robbery and murder, citizen A. was detained and arrested. "Defender" immediately began to impress them with stories about the many difficult cases won. In a private conversation, he mentioned dozens of names of heads of law enforcement agencies of the region, investigators, prosecutors, judges; called many by name, emphasizing informal, close relations with them. Having made the necessary impression, he secretly told that in the regional center allegedly there are "rates for the services" of law enforcement agencies. Cursing corruption in all echelons of power, the lawyer explained that at least 10 thousand euros would be needed for a suspended sentence in such a difficult case, and this was only for bribes for investigators. Relatives meekly gave the necessary amount of European currency to the lawyer, but he, as you might guess, did not give any bribes to anyone.
10 days after the arrest, the lawyer appealed against the arrest of the client in court, but the complaint was dismissed there. Then the lawyer told the client and his relatives that he gave a bribe to the judge in the amount of 2 thousand euros, but this was not enough, another 7 thousand were needed. Relatives also collected this amount. And so, throughout the pre-trial and trial proceedings in the case, the lawyer regularly demanded money from the principals, allegedly for bribes, and appropriated what he received. At the same time, he told all sorts of tales about how he fights for the interests of the client, goes to restaurants with investigators and prosecutors, gives them gifts, but alas, nothing happens because of the "intrigues of enemies." Despite all the promises, the accused was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Such crimes cause colossal damage not only to the authority of the legal profession, but also to the interests of justice, honor, dignity and business reputation of specific judges, prosecutors, and investigators. The rate of latency of such crimes is extremely high. Fraudulent lawyers go to any scam in order to fraudulently obtain the money of the principals, and in many ways, although, of course, by no means in all, the widespread rumors of "endemic bribery and mutual responsibility" among investigators, prosecutors and judges are the result of "work "unscrupulous lawyers.
There are also fundamentally different methods of fraud, which are used much more often than the one described above. For example, lawyers, having concluded an agreement and received a fee, do not really carry out protection in connection with employment in other cases, business trips, etc. As a result, investigative actions are disrupted. For the principal, such a lawyer comes up with a story according to which he allegedly goes to the investigator and prosecutor almost every day, knocks around doorsteps, trying to help his client. In simpler situations, an unscrupulous lawyer simply demands and takes money, promises nothing, does nothing, but does not return the money received. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in relation to such cases, explains: "Receiving money under the condition of fulfilling an obligation, subsequently not fulfilled, may be qualified as fraud if it is established that the accused had no intention to fulfill the obligation taken and pursued the goal of taking possession of the money."
The specifics of the work of a defense lawyer in a criminal process is such that it is very difficult to assess whether the lawyer has fulfilled his obligations under the agreement or not, whether the amount of the fee paid is subject to return to the principal, or the lawyer has completely “worked it out”. It is even more difficult to prove that an unscrupulous defender, already upon receiving the money, had the intention to appropriate it without fulfilling his obligations to protect, i.e. committed fraud. However, there are times when this is not difficult to do. So, in one of the cases, an unscrupulous lawyer entered into three agreements with principals, for which he received fees, but two days before he purchased tickets in order to leave the territory of the region on a long vacation. Moreover, he knew that most of the work to protect the suspects accused in these criminal cases must be done in the first days after the conclusion of the agreement. Thus, when concluding agreements, the lawyer understood in advance that he would not fulfill his obligations to the principals, in other words, he went to fraud.
Often the victims of fraudulent actions by unscrupulous lawyers are people who actually did not commit a crime at all, or committed a minor act, or committed a minor crime, but due to their inexperience mistakenly believing that they committed a more serious crime. Such people, by virtue of their law-abiding social attitude, have a hard time experiencing the circumstances that have become the subject of an investigation, exaggerate the nature and extent of their guilt. So, in a case initiated on the fact of the alleged theft of a laptop from the accounting department of a state enterprise, it was found that one of the accountants (a part-time student) took home an expensive device, stupidly without warning anyone, during her vacation to write a thesis, and then return the laptop to accounting. Of course, she had no intention of illegal, mercenary and gratuitous use of this property for her own benefit, because she did not make any attempts to avert suspicion from herself. However, in the initiated criminal case, the girl was initially interrogated as a suspect in the theft of someone else's property entrusted to the guilty person, by embezzlement, committed by a person using his official position, on a large scale.
Terribly frightened by what happened, tormented by pangs of conscience, she turned to a law office, where she managed to get in touch with a scoundrel. Realizing that the case against the principal would sooner or later be terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti, but seeing that he was facing an incompetent, fearful of consequences and at the same time a conscientious girl who had no one to consult on such an issue, the lawyer began to exaggerate. Virtue explained that she would almost certainly face a sentence of 10 years in prison with confiscation of property, since her guilt would be proven, and the only way to avoid responsibility was to give a bribe to the investigator, who is his good friend. And the suspect, believing the scoundrel, gave him all her savings, as well as the money that she could borrow from relatives and friends.
Indeed, many of our compatriots have developed for generations an unaccountable fear of law enforcement agencies. It can be called the "totalitarian syndrome", the fear of reprisals, when a person, even realizing that he is not guilty, can easily believe that he will be illegally sentenced to imprisonment. This syndrome is successfully used by fraudulent lawyers. The lawyer, in the above example with a student, already on the same day learned from the investigator that the criminal case would be terminated immediately after the end of the audit, if no other criminal acts were found. Further, he was busy only with the fact that he staged his active defensive activity. The longer the investigator delayed with the issuance of a decision to dismiss the case, the more profitable it was for the lawyer. As a result, in two months, the scoundrel-lawyer managed to get another 10 thousand rubles from the client, ate and drank in a cafe at her expense. Later, he effectively presented the fact of the termination of the case as his personal merit and remained in the memory of the "rescued" benefactor and the best lawyer in the city.
Speaking about the spread of fraud in the lawyers' environment, it should be taken into account that often corrupt lawyers and corrupt justice officials actually form criminal groups that brazenly extort bribes from their clients. Fraudulent activities of this kind are especially dangerous. In such cases, two "actors" are involved in the dramatization, acting together, although the law obliges them to be procedural opponents. In a criminal connection, the investigator (detective officer, prosecutor, judge) intimidates the victim with all measures of procedural and non-procedural coercion, and the lawyer confirms the reality of the threats, predicting even more serious consequences, but promises to do everything possible in favor of the client. Of course, for a fee. It is not uncommon for cases when a case is not actually initiated, no verification is carried out, and a statement (message) about a crime is not even registered. That is, the whole thing, all criminal prosecution measures are completely staged, and various fictitious documents are presented to the victim of fraud.
Here is a recent example of such a criminal conspiracy. A certain young man was taken to the detective's office for committing hooligan acts at the bus station. The operative, violating all the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conducted a personal search at his place, during which he planted and then removed a packet of narcotic substance from the pocket of the delivered person. A fictitious protocol of detention on suspicion of committing two crimes was drawn up. Frightened, feeling guilty for the committed hooliganism, in fact petty, the guy began to persuade the operative to let him go and not inform his parents and go to work. At the same time, he unwittingly made it clear to him about his solvency. An urgently called "pocket" lawyer immediately appeared, who in a confidential conversation announced the "price of the issue" - 100 thousand rubles. The young man agreed and was released, and a few days later he gave the required amount to the lawyer. How could he know that the report of hooliganism and illegal drug possession was not even registered in the crime register, not to mention the initiation of a criminal case.
These examples show how simple the methods of committing such crimes are, and at the same time how difficult it is to detect them. To our deep regret, a fraudulent lawyer is less afraid of the punishment provided for by law, because, we emphasize once again, the detection rate of such crimes is negligible. Even the above examples clearly show that victims are not very interested in filing complaints, and law enforcement agencies do not show proper initiative in solving these most dangerous crimes. At the same time, the fight against fraudulent lawyers, and, more importantly, their accomplices in law enforcement and judicial departments, should be given the closest attention by all state bodies, as well as the bar itself, if it is really interested in clearing its ranks from random people - cynical and presumptuous of impunity businessmen from justice.
Deals with justice 
The public is no less concerned about the complete lack of desire on the part of lawyers to go into conflict with investigators, prosecutors and judges. A study of the typical personality traits of unscrupulous lawyers revealed that most of them seek to establish good relationships with their procedural opponents (or judges). This is really a problem, because with such a cowardly approach, how can one defend the defendant if the main concern of the "defender" is not to quarrel with the prosecution. Lawyers' deals with justice, leading to harm for the client, are another factor in the degradation of the lawyer clan. There are frequent cases when it is the investigator who recommends a lawyer to his person under investigation, but the defender offered by the investigator will be convenient for him, and not for someone who needs protection. If the lawyer is offered by the investigator, it means that he is sure that the defender will not cause him problems and inconvenience. Moreover, the possibility is not ruled out that such a lawyer will actually work for the investigator for the money of the person under investigation. Such lawyers persuade their client to sign charges, to agree with the article, not to write a complaint, acting to the detriment of the interests of the client.
There are lawyers, and there are quite a few of them, who know judges and prosecutors very well, who have access to all court offices and are able to informally agree on a reduction in the sentence or on the reclassification of the charge to another article. Yes, they can be useful, but on the other hand, such a lawyer values a favorable place, and will not create difficulties for the judge. Therefore, it is not worth waiting for such a lawyer to fight for the interests of the client. In the event that the judge or the prosecutor does not “amicably” reduce the term, the defender will prefer to agree with them.
You should not count on a free lawyer working on the appointment of an investigator or court, although he can do everything in his power to justify the client. By law, everyone has the right to a free lawyer. But there are several unpleasant moments: firstly, such a lawyer often has low qualifications or has only recently graduated from an institute and has zero practical work experience, and secondly, such a lawyer is paid quite low, and therefore does not show much zeal, in- thirdly, such a lawyer does not want to quarrel with the investigator, he also does not want to delve into the matter, therefore he often supports the interests not so much of the client as of the investigator, point-blank not noticing violations and persuading the client to agree with everything that the investigator says. In addition, he is not so free, a free lawyer, because few people know that in case of losing the case, the court can impose legal costs for the defense on the client himself. That is, the lawyer is paid from the state budget, but then the judge has the right to recover costs from the accused. A lawyer will be completely free only if the defendant officially refused him, but he was appointed anyway, or there is simply nothing to take from the defendant.
In most cases, state-provided criminal defense lawyers offer their clients to plead guilty, get a short sentence quickly, and then get parole and go to all four sides. The only nuance of such protection is that the defendant is not always guilty, and such a seemingly obvious outcome of the case is acceptable to him. There are also conspiracies with the investigating authorities, when lawyers recommend to their clients to forget about the once signed documents with the investigator, and also not to apply to the prosecutor's office with a statement about the beating, citing the fact that it is not worth making a fuss, supposedly the investigators will get angry.
Another unpleasant behavior of lawyers is that a significant percentage of "criminal" lawyers began their careers "on the other side of the barricades" - in the prosecutor's office and investigative bodies. Many of them work honestly, but some "leak" information about clients to former colleagues. In gratitude, they give their informants the opportunity to win small cases. But such lawyers give up "serious clients".
Due to the monopolization of the right to defense in criminal proceedings, lawyers' clients have no guarantees. This is just the freedom to complain about the lawyer to the bar, or the judge to apply to the same bar with his own special opinion about the lawyer. But there is nothing to do, and if you meet such lawyers on your way, you can safely complain to the law office in which he is a member. If this method does not work, you can file a complaint with the regional bar association. Well, or as a last resort, you can contact the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for your subject. The Ministry is responsible for the control and supervision of advocacy. In any case, a complaint can become a method of influencing such a lawyer, which will make him think about changing the tactics of his behavior. If a criminal offense can be traced in the actions of a lawyer, then it is necessary to write a statement to the prosecutor's office, especially since this is your civic duty.
professional deformation 
Professional deformation, which is a destructive change in the qualities of a person that occurs under the influence of stereotypes of professional activity, also interferes with the lawyer's adequacy. The changes may be positive, but, unfortunately, one can also observe the negative impact of the legal profession on the individual. Conventionally, the professional deformation of a lawyer can be expressed in those manifestations that are common to the legal professions, and in those that are specific and are found precisely among representatives of the legal community.
This is, first of all, legal nihilism, expressed in the denial of generally accepted values: ideals, moral norms, culture, forms of social life. The legal nihilism of lawyers manifests itself in a disrespectful attitude to the law and pushes to solve the problems of the principal not at the legal level. Emotional coldness and cynicism, reaching the point of indifference to the fate of the principal, are extremely dangerous. Faced with human grief, some lawyers remain callous, insensitive, unable to show simple human sympathy. In professional communication, this leads to the depersonalization of the client when he is perceived as an object of influence. The decrease in the level of communication culture brings no less problems. Similar manifestations are observed in lawyers who specialize in criminal defense and deal with a certain category of clients. In the process of conversations, switching to a language understandable to the client, these lawyers learn criminal jargon and begin to use it in everyday communication, which scares people away.
Other specific deformations inherent in representatives of the legal profession include overestimated self-esteem, which consists in the position "always right", and takes on hypertrophied forms: excessive self-confidence, resourcefulness, inability to admit one's mistakes, as well as opposing oneself to principals, the position "the client is my enemy "when it is revealed that, when concluding an agreement with a principal, it is not possible to clearly define the range of professional duties, the lack of the skill of establishing trusting, but business relationships with a client, the inability to draw a clear line between professional and personal communication, the desire to later limit the range of legal problems of the client to be solved, so that he allegedly "did not sit on his head." It is clear what attitude the client will have towards such a lawyer.
All of the above is only part of the factors that led the lawyer corporation in Russia to actual degradation, degeneration from defenders into exploiters of human problems. In recent years, up to 30% of the facts of termination of the status of a lawyer, according to the Federal Chamber of Lawyers, are associated with the following reasons: the entry into force of a court verdict on the recognition of a lawyer guilty of an intentional crime; non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment by a lawyer of his professional duties to the principal; violation by a lawyer of the norms of professional ethics of a lawyer; non-execution or improper execution by the lawyer of the decisions of the bodies of the Bar Association, adopted within their competence.
It is also obvious that lawyers are forgetting the very essence of advocacy - humane by definition. Any public figure working in the field of human rights will confirm that in the regions there are practically no lawyers who would publicly speak out with sore social problems, published on these occasions in the media. For example, they could say why it has become so easy to go to jail on a criminal charge in our time, why the number of prisoners is increasing. It is sad, because lawyers are simply obliged to be at the forefront of civil society. Such passivity of lawyers also leads people to think that legal protection should be sought elsewhere, but not in law firms.
Anatoly Dovzhenko, columnist for the portal "Justice Bulletin"
This requires a certain assistance of the accused, and sometimes other persons. Most of the defendants are ready to provide all possible assistance to the defenders. At the same time, some of them are interested in the failure of the investigation and are ready to do everything in their power to make the activities of the investigator paralyzed or unsuccessful. And the investigator in the process of learning the truth has to expend considerable effort to overcome the opposition of such persons, as well as the attempts of the accused to avoid responsibility by any means. The task of the lawyer is to develop such optimal procedural, organizational and tactical forms of his activity that would provide the accused with only legal methods of protection and overcome all possible procedural obstacles in a legal way.
As a rule, accusing a person of committing a criminal act causes him fear of punishment, fear of responsibility -
Therefore, he performs various actions, deeds or is inactive, believing that this will help himself to avoid responsibility or reduce the term of punishment. His arsenal of means is unlimited, while a lawyer has the right to act only by legal means. The accused use silence, lies and slander as a way of their defense. They know what circumstances should be hidden. The Defender, when starting the case, has a very incomplete idea of who committed the crime, for what motives, what should and can be established by him in the case. The accused, having a gain in time and initiative, often forces the lawyer to act in the most difficult situation.
It is known that the progress of a lawyer towards his goal is accompanied by the accumulation of factual data protecting the accused.
He, knowing about the possibility of using certain methods and techniques by the investigator, tries to complicate their application, generally conceal the truth, including from the lawyer, and evade responsibility. In turn, the lawyer, taking into account the methods of committing and concealing a crime, tries to establish hidden facts, neutralize the opposition of interested parties, and often the client in establishing the truth. All this sometimes gives lawyer proof a conflicting character. Between the lawyer and the accused, conflicts arise only when their goals do not coincide. interests and methods of action in relation to a particular phenomenon, object, person or current situation,In this regard, one can hardly agree with the position of individual practitioners who have a negative attitude towards the very idea of the existence of a conflict situation, the possibility of confrontation and opposition between the defender and the client.
Conflicts in reality are objective in nature and express the universal law of unity and struggle of opposites as the driving force behind the development of society. Therefore, it would be a mistake to turn a blind eye to the objective existence of conflict situations in the process of defense, to various forms of opposition to a lawyer, to pretend that the immediate interests and goals of participants in criminal proceedings always coincide.
In order to recognize opposition to the defense and, in accordance with this, the right choice by a lawyer of a tactical line of command, he needs to distinguish between a conflict situation created by the opposition of interested parties from a problematic procedural situation caused by complications associated with the search for channels of information, with the discovery of defensive facts. This refers to cases when the accused (suspect) finds it difficult to provide the lawyer with the necessary information or when the lawyer cannot establish the necessary contact with the accused, etc.
The conflict situation is created by the deliberate opposition of the accused, and sometimes the victims and witnesses, which interfere with the investigator in establishing the truth and hinder the work of the lawyer. This explains the unlimitedness, variety of means, ways of counteracting protection by interested parties. Counteraction consists not only in refusing to transmit the requested information or reporting false information. It is also expressed in evasion of help, failure to appear at the invitation, destruction of necessary documents, bribery of witnesses, concealment of methods of action, etc.
2. Ways to counter the defense. In lawyer practice, there are the following ways to counteract the defense: evasion of interested parties from the investigation and trial; slander of the accused by accomplices of the crime; their conspiracy of witnesses or victims; staging of the scene; commission of actions that direct the defense of the accused along the wrong path; destruction and falsification of physical evidence and documents; hiding and concealing self-incriminating documents; the use of secret writing in prison correspondence; establishment of illegal communication between persons held in custody, at large; attempts to obtain the necessary information against the accused from the participants in the investigative actions.
Consider the methods most common in practice.
Evasion of the accused from the investigation makes it difficult, and sometimes excludes the achievement of the goals of the preliminary investigation, therefore, the criminal procedure law recognizes this as the basis for the application of the most severe preventive measure - detention. Evasion of the defendant from the investigation and trial complicates the work of a lawyer.
In practice, collusion between accomplices in a crime is quite common, when the persons involved in the case agree among themselves on what evidence they will give if they are detained. arrest, summons for interrogation, etc. So, when investigating group crimes, a lawyer is usually confronted by several persons who, for one reason or another existing for them, are in conflict with each other. In such cases, each of them, trying to mitigate his guilt or avoid responsibility, slanders other accomplices, including the client; often he takes full responsibility for what has been done, trying to shield the others (self-incrimination), while remaining in a confrontation with the investigator. Defense in such cases can be very difficult.
Another common method is the conspiracy of witnesses or victims by accomplices. The lawyer and the accused may already be confronted by several persons who at first were in conflict, and then, having concluded a permanent or temporary agreement, entered into a confrontation with both the investigator and the defense. In some cases, witnesses may be in family or other personal relations with one of the accused and therefore give evidence necessary for the latter. In other situations, they give false testimony as a result of threats from the accused, his relatives and friends. There are also cases of direct bribery by accomplices of witnesses and victims.
The re-enactment of the scene by interested parties also hinders the defense. It involves making changes to the situation at the scene of the incident that distort the true picture of the event, so that when examining the scene of the incident, circumstances pointing to the accused were recorded (the so-called frame-up of the accused), etc.
It should also be said about the commission of actions that direct protection along the wrong path. Such actions include the staging of a crime, as well as such actions of the perpetrator and interested parties as appealing to the authorities with various statements that distort the essence of the event, complaints, anonymous statements, etc.
d.Concealment and concealment of valuables by accomplices are carried out in order to avoid seizure of their property and to preserve valuables acquired by criminal means. In this way, compensation for material damage remains with the client. Things acquired by criminal means are registered by accomplices in the name of their relatives, acquaintances; they arrange hiding places; money and valuables are transferred to relatives during the investigation. The defendant with his property remains the focus of the investigation.
It should be emphasized that the leakage of information about the course of the preliminary investigation also contributes to the opposition of the defense, in connection with which the lawyer has to sharply raise the question of the need to preserve the investigative secrecy. Premature disclosure of evidentiary material may interfere with the lawyer himself or put the accused at risk.
Thus, counteraction to the defense should be understood as the vigorous activity of the persons who committed the crime (except for the accused). and others interested in the failure to protect people, carried out by them in a specially created situation and aimed at obstructing the work of a lawyer in order to evade responsibility or mitigate the punishment for the crime they committed.
3. Interaction with the client. The interaction of a lawyer with the accused is a cooperation based on the law of persons who are not subordinate to each other, in which they act in concert, correctly combining the means and methods used.
Interaction includes: the lawyer's decision on joint activities with the accused; the behavior of the latter in the execution of the lawyer's decision; their general procedural activities related to the evaluation of evidence and operational information on the case.
The interaction of these subjects, carrying out criminal procedural and non-procedural activities, is aimed at exchanging and obtaining evidentiary and orienting information necessary for the reliable establishment of protective facts.
In the process of joint activities, situations arise that determine the implementation of specific forms of interaction. The expediency and effectiveness of such forms of interaction are due to procedural situations that develop at a certain stage of the investigation or consideration of a criminal case, and are aimed at establishing the facts of the defense.
The lawyer interacts in two aspects. On the one hand, the interaction is aimed at the procedural establishment of the facts included in the subject of proof, and allows the lawyer to outline versions, effectively apply tactics that meet the socio-psychological characteristics of the accused (suspect). And on the other hand, interaction can have as its goal only the establishment of only circumstances of a protective nature. At the same time, both can use both procedural and non-procedural forms of contacts.
The procedural conditions for the interaction of a lawyer with the accused are the requirements that the law imposes on this activity. Among them: the legality, validity and expediency of the lawyer's decisions on interaction; the legality of the behavior of the accused in the implementation of this decision of the lawyer; the legitimacy of the lawyer's activities to include the results of such interaction in the general system of defensive evidence in a criminal case. In each case, the interaction is determined by the prescription of the law.
"Save me, God!". Thank you for visiting our site, before you start studying the information, please subscribe to our Orthodox community on Instagram Lord, Save and Save † - https://www.instagram.com/spasi.gospodi/. The community has over 49,000 subscribers.
There are many of us, like-minded people, and we are growing rapidly, posting prayers, sayings of saints, prayer requests, posting useful information about holidays and Orthodox events in a timely manner... Subscribe. Guardian Angel for you!
As the people say: “You should not swear off the bag and prison!”. Everything in life develops, fortune is a very capricious girl and it is impossible to always walk in her favorites, but in fact it is not necessary, because the participation of fortune is necessary only at certain moments of life, just when a lot depends on luck.
There are moments in life when the fate of another person directly depends on the decision made by one person. It is in this specificity that court cases take place. The decision of the court is a verdict, but it is not always fair, not always deserved. Being a judge is very difficult morally, because you are responsible for the fate of a person.
Prayer before the court to St. Spyridon
If a person is faced with such a difficult fate as a trial, then when you go to court , be sure to pray. For help in court cases, they often turn to Spiridon of Trimifuntsky.
The saint is revered as a miracle worker. Under Tsar Constantine, he was appointed chief bishop of the city of Trimifunt, in Cyprus. I always tried to imitate the righteous from the Old Testament. In St. Spyridon both kindness and severity were combined at the same time.
He died during prayer - the most holy appeal to the Lord God. The burial took place in the Church of All Saints in the city of Trimifunt. After a while, the relics of the Saint were transferred to the island of Kofra, where they are preserved to this day. In the Church of the Resurrection of the Word in Moscow, there are two icons with particles of the relics of St. Spyridon ..
- A petition before the court of a Saint is incredibly powerful when an innocent person asks for help, one who was imprisoned by mistake.
- Prayer to win the court - an appeal to St. Spyridon must be repeated before each court session and then the outcome will certainly be in your direction.
- It is customary to turn to Spiridon with sincere and heartfelt words, kneeling before the Image of the Saint to ask him for help in judicial matters.
Prayer to Nicholas the Wonderworker for judgment
Prayer words addressed to Nikolai Ugodnik come to the aid of those convicted, even for a truly committed crime. If a person committed a sin, but sincerely repented.
It is very important that not only the accused, but also his relatives pray to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker before the trial. You need to ask the Wonderworker before the court:
- About Intercession
- About representation
- About the help of the Lord
- About forgiveness of sins
A prayer to Nicholas the Wonderworker for a successful outcome of the case should be read, even if a person in a lawsuit becomes a plaintiff. Appeal to the Pleasant of the Lord will help the court to pass a verdict in justice.
Before the Image of Nicholas the Pleasant, they pronounce the following petition for the help of the Lord:
“Oh, all-holy Nicholas, the servant of the most beautiful Lord, our warm intercessor, and everywhere in sorrow a quick helper. Help me, a sinner and a dull one, in this present life, beg the Lord God to grant me the remission of all my sins, having sinned from my youth, in all my life, deed, word, thought and all my feelings; and at the end of my soul, help me, the damned one, implore the Lord God, all creatures of the Creator, to deliver me from air ordeals and eternal torment, may I always glorify the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and your merciful intercession, now and ever and forever and ever. Amen"
Prayer of Anastasia the Desolder from the Court
Sincere petitions to St. Anastasia will help to win the case in court, she is considered the intercessor and helper of prisoners. During the years of her life, she helped prisoners in dungeons.
Brothers and sisters in Christ. We need your kind help. Created a new Orthodox channel in Yandex Zen: Orthodox world and there are still few subscribers (20 people). For the rapid development and communication of the Orthodox teaching to a greater number of people, we ask you to go and subscribe to the channel. Only useful Orthodox information. Guardian Angel for you!
The Holy One secretly made her way into the cells to the prisoners and gave them help. She bandaged wounds, drank water, washed, and also healed spiritual wounds: she delivered the prisoners from the bonds of anguish and worries.
To alleviate the fate of the prisoner, it is necessary to address the face of the Saint as follows:
“O long-suffering and wise great martyr Anastasia of Christ! You stand with your soul in heaven at the throne of the Lord, but on earth, by the grace given to you, you perform various healings. Look mercifully upon us (names), asking for your help: extend to the Lord your holy prayers for us, and ask us for the remission of our sins, sick healing, grieving and distressed ambulance; implore the Lord, may he give us a Christian end and a good answer at his Last Judgment, may we be vouchsafed with you to glorify the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen"
To win the case, during the trial, mentally you need to be with the Lord God Jesus Christ. Pray for forgiveness of sins committed and ask for help for a successful outcome. The Lord hears everyone who turns to him. Even if a person does not know the text of a single prayer, but turned to the Almighty with an open heart and the purest thoughts, the Lord will certainly help.
Prayer before the court for a successful outcome is a very important church rite. She is able to help both the innocent - saving him from unjust punishment, and the guilty, if he sincerely repented - will help to receive a milder punishment. It is important if a man is judged that his mother prays.
A mother's prayer for a son has the greatest power among all Orthodox prayers. The love of a mother for her child is as boundless as the love of the Almighty for people.
A prayer from prison to be acquitted at trial helps the judge make the right decision on the case. Being a judge is incredibly difficult, because you are responsible for the fate of another person. Before making a decision, the judge weighs everything, with "closed eyes", like the great Themis, and takes a fateful verdict.
In order for the judge to make the right decision, throughout the trial, and especially when the court retires to think and make a decision, it is necessary to pray for acquittal - this helps to tip the scales of the judge in the right direction.
Before the trial, you can and should pray, God will hear the prayers of the asker and will certainly help. But it is important to remember the main thing: the judgment of the world does not have such power as the judgment of the Lord. At some point in life, each of us will stand before the judgment of the Lord God and answer for all the sins committed.
God bless you!
A conspiracy will help punish the offender. In life, we encounter all kinds of people. Not every one of them has positive, kind feelings towards us. Unfortunately, the world is full of evil. One way or another, it is embodied in specific people who are trying to recoup their neighbors. When faced with such a situation, the first reaction is retaliatory aggression. For an insult, I want to say “a couple of affectionate ones”, for an insult - to cause harm.
It's just not the right decision. You can also bring the world to destruction. Well, if not the whole planet, then ruin your life, for sure. What for? When faced with evil in any form, it is best to stop and think about yourself. You have already been attacked. Why multiply it many times. After all, it is clear that sharpness on your part will not go unanswered by your opponent. Or an intrigue based on resentment will certainly cause a similar reaction from the opponent.
How to punish the offender? CONSPIRACY!
It is better to approach the issue subtly. Let him rage with malice and waste his strength on thoughts of revenge. Why do you need it? Leave everything to the will of the Higher Forces. Use magic. There are quite specific methods of punishing offenders. Some of them are good because they are directed only at a really evil person. If in the heat of the moment you want to punish someone who personally treats you well, then the conspiracy will not work. After all, there are mistakes. And an attack on an innocent is counted as a sin, for which you will have to answer. We come to the same point: aggression breeds aggression.
There is also . It is not considered here. People who are not initiated, who do not have deep knowledge, are not recommended to engage in dark conspiracies. The result may be sadder for the magician himself than for his offender.
Before performing the ritual, try to calm down and forgive (no matter how difficult it may be). If there is no resentment left in the soul, the punishment will be a real collapse for the one who dared to offend you.
It is recommended to cool your ardor a little. That is, the conspiracy is not read immediately after the infliction of resentment. Only after calming down, after analyzing the situation, realizing that it is this person who is to blame, they proceed to magical revenge. Wait for the person to walk past you. Turn around and say to him:
“Arrow, fly with pain, untrodden paths, unknown paths, through (name of the enemy) blood, liver and spleen. So that tears from the eyes, so that the work comes from the hands, so that there are a hundred misfortunes and thousands of torments in his life. Beat him, beat him, if they didn’t lead him to live in peace. Amen!"
Now spit and walk away.
After reading the plot, try not to meet with the offender for at least a week. Keep in mind that he will feel something is wrong and will try to “give back” negative energy to you. If you see him, then do not communicate and in no case do not accept anything from his hands. After a week, it will be almost impossible to return the wishes back.
Punish the enemy - conspiracy
Your enemy. If not, then just draw a face, as best you can, and write his name. Light two black candles. Pick up a needle (previously used a silver product). Prick him alternately in the eyes and read these words: “With a black eye, a black demon, black paths, black seas, black forests, I stick a white needle, I call for justice. Let everyone get what they deserve. Good for me, bad for you! To each according to his deserts, even a furrow, even a plow! Amen!".
After that, the photo must be burned, and the needle buried in the ground. Do not leave the attributes used in the ritual in your home. This is dangerous. Through them, evil can enter your home. And yet, remember that the ceremony is carried out only in a calm state, without anger and hatred.
A strong conspiracy to punish the offender
Light a candle from the Temple and until it goes out, you should read:
“The Lord is in me and everywhere! I am under his gracious protection. It is in His power to change the world, to take away a soul from a person, to give life, to bestow justice. I bow under his rule. May, By the will of His will, justice be restored, everything that was bad will be put in place! Amen!"
Conspiracy to punish mistress
If in your life, then take as much salt as is placed in the salt shaker. At midnight on Saturday, recite these words on it:
“I bound it with chains, but I tore it apart. Ovila with fetters, but I cut it. I wished evil, but I got out of the basement. He drowned with water, but the grave did not come. I took my husband, but there was not enough strength. Take yours, I won't. Let each according to sins, and to me - according to fate. In the name of the Lord of love. Amen!"
Be sure to put the salt shaker on your husband so that he touches the charmed salt. After that, if you know a lovebird, then throw this salt after her. And if you don’t know, then just pour it on the lawn on the street with the words:
"My husband's mistress"
Conspiracy to punish an opponent
When you should, you need to go to the churchyard. Narvite grass near the fence (not in the cemetery). Weave a pigtail out of it. Hang on a fence or tree, saying the following words:
“Weed from the churchyard, now you are not a guest. Simple people don’t walk on you, they don’t remember their relatives. You are now scythe, covered with black dew. You are now my rival's braid, so that her hair will come out. Stick to the one that is to blame for my trouble. Find her in the field, in the water and everywhere. Amen!"
Conspiracy how to punish a bad person
To punish the "radish", buy a skein of blue thread. On a piece of paper, write the full name of the bad person. Roll it up into a small tube. Rewind the threads on it and read the following words.
“The blue sea will come soon. Overwhelmed by waves, drowned by oxen. To each his share. And you - do not swim and do not sink, just dive under the wave. There the demon will come for you, retribution will come for your sins. Amen!"
As you read, imagine the person.
Conspiracy to punish the debtor
Take a coin of any denomination. Show it and say:
“As you, the face of the night, say goodbye to the earth, so let (name) say goodbye to money. He has no luck, no profit for him, until he returns everything that he took away from people, he raised a whole wave of troubles. Let him toil and suffer, he doesn’t know how to return good luck! Amen!"
Throw a coin into the big water and ask the Lord to fulfill your plan. And if possible, then give the charmed coin to the debtor. It will work better that way.
Loading...