一个案件中的多个陪审团裁决:立法和司法实践中解决问题的方法

S. A. Nasonov
{"title":"一个案件中的多个陪审团裁决:立法和司法实践中解决问题的方法","authors":"S. A. Nasonov","doi":"10.17803/2311-5998.2024.113.1.149-157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article, based on a study of judicial practice and comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation and a number of foreign countries, examines the problem of “multiplicity” of jury verdicts, i.e. the presence of two or more jury verdicts in one criminal case that meet the criteria of certainty and consistency and are subjects to proclamation. The author notes that the phenomenon of multiple jury verdicts is determined by the procedural error of the presiding judge, who recognizes that a certain and consistent jury verdict can not be pronounced. The article considers this phenomenon as a negative fact that contradicts the essential features of a jury trial. The author believes that solving the problem of multiple jury verdicts is possible, on the one hand, by clarifying and legalizing the grounds for recognizing the verdict as unclear or contradictory. On the other hand, there is a need for a significant modification of the procedural form of checking the jury’s verdict by the presiding judge for its clarity and consistency and giving him explanations to the jury in this regard. The author makes proposals for legislative reinforcement of the discussion between the presiding judge and the parties about the defects of the jury’s unannounced verdict, which should take place in the absence of the jury in a closed court hearing.","PeriodicalId":508920,"journal":{"name":"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))","volume":"51 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multiple jury verdicts in the one case: approaches to solving the problem in legislation and judicial practice\",\"authors\":\"S. A. Nasonov\",\"doi\":\"10.17803/2311-5998.2024.113.1.149-157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article, based on a study of judicial practice and comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation and a number of foreign countries, examines the problem of “multiplicity” of jury verdicts, i.e. the presence of two or more jury verdicts in one criminal case that meet the criteria of certainty and consistency and are subjects to proclamation. The author notes that the phenomenon of multiple jury verdicts is determined by the procedural error of the presiding judge, who recognizes that a certain and consistent jury verdict can not be pronounced. The article considers this phenomenon as a negative fact that contradicts the essential features of a jury trial. The author believes that solving the problem of multiple jury verdicts is possible, on the one hand, by clarifying and legalizing the grounds for recognizing the verdict as unclear or contradictory. On the other hand, there is a need for a significant modification of the procedural form of checking the jury’s verdict by the presiding judge for its clarity and consistency and giving him explanations to the jury in this regard. The author makes proposals for legislative reinforcement of the discussion between the presiding judge and the parties about the defects of the jury’s unannounced verdict, which should take place in the absence of the jury in a closed court hearing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))\",\"volume\":\"51 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2024.113.1.149-157\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2024.113.1.149-157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文基于对司法实践的研究以及对俄罗斯联邦和一些外国立法的比较法律分析,探讨了陪审团判决的 "多重性 "问题,即在一个刑事案件中存在两个或两个以上符合确定性和一致性标准且可宣布的陪审团判决。作者指出,陪审团的多重裁决现象是由主审法官的程序错误决定的,因为主审法官认识到无法宣布确定且一致的陪审团裁决。文章认为这种现象是一种负面事实,与陪审团审判的基本特征相矛盾。作者认为,解决陪审团多重裁决的问题,一方面可以通过明确承认裁决不明确或相互矛盾的理由并使之合法化来实现。另一方面,有必要对主审法官检查陪审团裁决的明确性和一致性并就此向陪审团做出解释的程序形式进行重大修改。作者建议从立法上加强主审法官与当事人之间就陪审团未经宣布的裁决的缺陷进行的讨论,讨论应在陪审团缺席的情况下以非公开庭审的形式进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multiple jury verdicts in the one case: approaches to solving the problem in legislation and judicial practice
The article, based on a study of judicial practice and comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation and a number of foreign countries, examines the problem of “multiplicity” of jury verdicts, i.e. the presence of two or more jury verdicts in one criminal case that meet the criteria of certainty and consistency and are subjects to proclamation. The author notes that the phenomenon of multiple jury verdicts is determined by the procedural error of the presiding judge, who recognizes that a certain and consistent jury verdict can not be pronounced. The article considers this phenomenon as a negative fact that contradicts the essential features of a jury trial. The author believes that solving the problem of multiple jury verdicts is possible, on the one hand, by clarifying and legalizing the grounds for recognizing the verdict as unclear or contradictory. On the other hand, there is a need for a significant modification of the procedural form of checking the jury’s verdict by the presiding judge for its clarity and consistency and giving him explanations to the jury in this regard. The author makes proposals for legislative reinforcement of the discussion between the presiding judge and the parties about the defects of the jury’s unannounced verdict, which should take place in the absence of the jury in a closed court hearing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信