Статья 'Несогласие с обвинительным вердиктом присяжных заседателей: сравнительно-правовой и теоретический подходы.' - журнал 'Law and Politics' - NotaBene.ru
по
Меню журнала
> Архив номеров > Рубрики > О журнале > Авторы > Требования к статьям > Политика издания > Редакция журнала > Порядок рецензирования статей > Редакционный совет > Ретракция статей > Этические принципы > О журнале > Политика открытого доступа > Оплата за публикации в открытом доступе > Online First Pre-Publication > Политика авторских прав и лицензий > Политика цифрового хранения публикации > Политика идентификации статей > Политика проверки на плагиат
Журналы индексируются
Реквизиты журнала
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Law and Politics
Reference:

Несогласие с обвинительным вердиктом присяжных заседателей: сравнительно-правовой и теоретический подходы

Nasonov Sergei Aleksandrovich

PhD in Law

Lawyer, Moscow City Bar Association; Docent, the department of Criminal Procedural Law, O. E. Kutafin Moscow State University

125993, Russia, Moscow, Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya Street 9

sergei-nasonov@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0706.2016.2.42909

Received:

01-02-2016


Published:

28-02-2016


Abstract: The article is devoted to possibilities of the disagreement of the professional judge (or a chamber) with a guilty verdict of the jury and procedural mechanisms of realization of such disagreement.The article discusses three procedural models of realization of disagreement of the professional judge with a guilty verdict of the jury: the abolishment of the verdict by a chief judge (or a chamber); the adherence of a chamber of professional judges to the minority of jurors; the annulment of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.The first model is characterized by the ability of a chief judge to cancel the jury's verdict and give a sentence contrary to it (the Anglo-American procedure in the jury trial) or discharge the jury and begin the process again (continental process).The second model is enshrined in Belgian legislation and alleges the possibility of summing up votes of professional judges with the minority of jurors (who voted for acquit) and give an acquittal verdict by a simple majority of votes. The author believes that this procedure is a guarantee following from the presumption of innocence.The third model of a disagreement with a guilty verdict of the jury arises from specifics of an appeal in countries with Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceeding, allowing the abolition of a guilty verdict on certain foundations. The author examines the legislative regulation of the possibility of disagreement of the presiding judge with a guilty verdict according to the CPC of the Russian Federation and certain problems arising in the judicial practice.


References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Другие сайты издательства:
Официальный сайт издательства NotaBene / Aurora Group s.r.o.