СОВЕТСКАЯ АДВОКАТУРА В ГОДЫ ВЕЛИКОЙ ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННОЙ ВОЙНЫ: РОЛЬ АДВОКАТА И ГРАНИЦЫ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИ ДОПУСТИМОГО В ЗАЩИТЕ ПО УГОЛОВНЫМ ДЕЛАМ

Abstract

Based on the sources from the federal and regional archives of Russia, particularly on the materials of revisions of local bar associations by Peoples’ Commissariat of Justice, the reports of bar associations and the materials of disciplinary proceedings against guilty defenders, the article is devoted to the practices of the Soviet bar during the Great Patriotic War. The author analyzes some recordings of criminal trials that show strategies of defense. Considering personnel and organizational aspects of the Soviet bar existence, the author pays attention to the professional and political qualities of Soviet lawyers, as the Soviet government tried to form them during the Great Patriotic war. That period was the beginning of the development of a new system of the Soviet bar, since its new legal and organizational grounds had been established in 1938–1939 after the adoption of the new Stalin’s Constitution. Despite the viewpoint of some historians that, under Stalin, the Soviet bar played an exclusively formal role in legal proceedings, the archival sources show that the Soviet authorities did not try to form defenders as passive observers on trial. On the contrary, Peoples’ Commissariat of Justice required them to participate in the proceedings actively and stubbornly. From the point of view of the Soviet power, a “prompt” Soviet advocate ought to have general and legal literacy and special moral, political and ideological consciousness into “socialist legality” line. However, in practice, the government faced serious personnel problems: the educational level of lawyers was low and the number of communists among them decreased dramatically because of the war. The active defense of a bar member in court often led to disciplinary proceedings against the advocate, in particular after defending those accused of counter-revolutionary crimes. At these trials, the defenders were faced with the need to challenge accusations of disloyalty to the Soviet government and could themselves be accused of anti-Soviet activities. Most advocates decided to be inactive during political trials (but such passiveness often caused disciplinary penalties toward a bar member). One of the most common defense strategies was to ask for mercy for the accused. Only a few advocates risked challenging the political accusations. The defenders were much more willing to present their arguments in their appeals to the Supreme Courts of the RSFSR and the USSR, which were probably considered by the defenders to be more objective and competent. In conclusion, the author assumes that the role of the Soviet bar in wartime was not exclusively formal, and the authorities sought to make it an additional institution for maintaining “socialist legality” and socio-political status quo during the war. However, the intension did not mean the desire of the Soviet power to make an advocate a real defender of citizens' rights.