Powers of the presiding judge in a jury trial in the context of adversarial principles of Russian criminal procedure

The main objective is to examine the powers of the presiding judge in jury trials in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings. Particular attention will be paid by the authors to different approaches to the notion of adversariality and the definition of the role of a professional judge in such courts, as well as the degree of his activity during the judicial investigation. The main methods used by the authors were dialectical and systematic method, analysis, synthesis, as well as special legal methods of knowledge. The outcome of the research will be a definition of the role of the presiding judge in a jury trial. Forms of criminal procedure that allow the individual to directly participate in the decision-making process of the judiciary are responsible for ensuring citizen participation in the administration of justice in the state. Two such forms have been developed in the world practice so far: the classical jury trial model and the Scheffen model. Each of them provides certain (broad or narrow) powers of a professional judge, the scope of which determines the degree of independence of citizens and the ultimate prospects for the development of a system of popular democratic justice in an adversarial system of criminal proceedings. In today's Russia, the classical jury trial model, modeled after the English jury trial, does not provide for broad powers of the court. In addition, there is the adversarial principle in Russia, which is fostered by the existence of jury trials. However, strict adherence to its provisions may lead to a misunderstanding of the role of the presiding judge in such a court. The activity of a professional judge should be balanced in accordance with the needs of the criminal case under consideration. Thus, requesting additional evidence in the course of the trial in order to verify existing evidence should not be considered a violation of the adversarial principle. Thus, the development of the optimal model for jury trial functioning as well as the determination of the presiding judge's role in the context of adversarial principles of criminal proceedings is a socially-systemic task. It requires a comprehensive dogmatic, comparative-legal and political-legal approach in order to develop the jury trial model which is more consistent with the legal system of the state.

Keywords

Authors

References