Заслушивание в судебном следствии присяжного заседателя и следователя: возможна ли аналогия?

Abstract

The legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which allows the possibility of questioning jurors in the court of appeal without granting them the procedural status of a witness and on a limited subject, is considered. This position is assessed as a turning point, radically changing the vector of relations to judges (even if they are not professional) — from the normatively conducted presumption of their honesty, which excludes all interviews of judges on any emerging occasions, to the possibility of checking the legality of the organization of jury discussion of the verdict, in particular, hearing them on this issue by the court of appeal. The question is raised about the significance of the new interpretation of part 3 of article 56 of the Сode of Criminal Procedure of Russian Federation for resolving the problem of participation in court proceedings of other powerful subjects of criminal proceedings who performed their function at the previous stages of criminal proceedings, for example, the investigator. The conclusion is made about the essential difference between these situations. At the same time, the article shows that certain nuances of the long-standing discussion about the position of the interrogated investigator can be clarified.