Summary of "Ю.М. Новолодский: "Вопросы уголовной практики" - Тема «Следственный эксперимент» . 20.10.21, 18.30"

Summary of Ю.М. Новолодский: “Вопросы уголовной практики”

Тема: «Следственный эксперимент»

Main Topic: Investigative Experiment in Criminal Practice

This lecture and Q&A session by Юрий Михайлович Новолодский focuses on the concept, practice, and legal nuances of the investigative experiment (“следственный эксперимент”) as a procedural action in Russian criminal law.

Key Concepts and Lessons

Definition and Legal Basis of Investigative Experiment
- Rooted in Article 181 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
- Purpose: To verify and clarify data relevant to a criminal case by reproducing actions, environment, or circumstances of an event.
- Helps verify the possibility of perceiving facts, establish the sequence of events, and understand how traces were formed.
- Must not endanger the health of participants.
Current Challenges in Practice
- Investigative experiments are becoming less frequent due to investigators’ reluctance, often seen as unnecessary or troublesome.
- No legislative obligation to conduct experiments, even when requested by the defense.
- The adversarial system is more declarative than practical; defense attorneys often must strongly prepare to compel an experiment.
Preparation for Conducting an Investigative Experiment
- Thorough preparation is essential, especially when requested by defense lawyers.
- Includes filing a detailed petition with diagrams, measurements, photographs, and other supporting materials.
- Example: A fatal traffic accident caused by a protruding steel hinge mechanism; the experiment demonstrated the causal link.
Role and Conduct of Investigative Experiment
- Can be conducted by investigators without special technical expertise.
- Experts, such as engineering psychologists, may be involved for complex scenarios (e.g., timing of actions in a crime).
- Experiments can be conducted during investigation or judicial stages, but require approval from authorities.
Difference Between Investigative Experiment and On-Site Verification
- On-site verification is simpler and less technical.
- Investigative experiments have greater technological content and evidentiary weight.
- Example: A case where witness testimony was disproved by expert analysis of visibility and distance.
Legal and Practical Issues
- Experiments sometimes cannot be conducted under identical conditions (e.g., weather, time).
- Judges or investigators may refuse citing danger or impracticality.
- Defense attorneys must clearly define the goals and strive to replicate conditions as closely as possible.
Use of Lawyers and Experts in Experiments
- Lawyers can actively prepare and legalize experiments.
- Experts may conduct experiments independently and provide reports and video evidence.
- Example: A taxi driver case where an engineering psychologist disproved the prosecution’s timeline.
Evidentiary Value and Verification of Evidence
- Distinction between research (determining qualities) and verification (checking relevance, admissibility, reliability).
- Not all information or protocols are evidence; only verified facts count.
- Courts and prosecutors often mishandle evidence presentation, reading lengthy protocols without highlighting evidentiary value.
- Calls for legislative reform to require prosecutors to specify which facts are proven by which evidence.
Judicial Attitudes and Problems
- Judges often avoid active involvement in defense or experiment facilitation, fearing accusations of corruption or bias.
- The adversarial system is weak in practice; defense must be proactive.
- Example: Judicial recusal when conflicts of interest arise (judge living in the same house as defendant with domestic conflicts).
Handling Witness Refusals and Media Disclosure - Courts have limited power if witnesses refuse to testify. - Defense should not substitute prosecutorial functions. - Investigative bodies sometimes leak preliminary information to media, potentially harming defendants; complaints should be filed with prosecutors or higher authorities.
Practical Advice and Encouragement - Defense attorneys should prepare detailed petitions and evidence for experiments. - Use expert opinions and video recordings to strengthen cases. - Encourage professional development through recommended literature and courses. - Audience encouraged to submit topics and questions for future streams.

Methodology / Instructions for Conducting Investigative Experiments

Identify the specific factual circumstances and goals to be verified.
Prepare a detailed petition including:
- Diagrams illustrating the event or mechanism.
- Measurements and technical data.
- Photographs of the scene, objects, and involved persons.
If possible, involve experts (e.g., engineering psychologists) to conduct or supervise the experiment.
Ensure conditions replicate the original event as closely as possible (weather, time, environment).
Record the experiment (video/photo) and include expert reports.
Submit all materials to the court as evidence.
If the investigator refuses, use strong legal arguments and thorough preparation to compel the experiment.
During court proceedings, request jury or judge to visit the scene if necessary.
Use the experiment results to challenge or verify indictment allegations.
Maintain awareness of procedural rules and rights regarding evidence presentation and witness testimony.

Notable Case Examples

Traffic accident involving a steel hinge mechanism causing fatal injuries.
Taxi driver case disproving prosecution timeline with expert experiment.
“Three Armenians” case where witness testimony was disproved by expert on-site verification.
Jury trial involving witness pointing to an impossible parking location due to natural obstacles.

Speakers / Sources Featured

Юрий Михайлович Новолодский — Main speaker, criminal defense lawyer and legal educator.
Rostislav Zimin — Questioner (listener).
Sergei Poznansky — Questioner (listener).
Ibrahim (last name unclear) — Questioner (listener).
Sergei Sorokin — Questioner (listener).
Galimy Akbar — Questioner (listener).
Emily Azizova — Questioner (listener).
Expert engineering psychologists — Referenced experts involved in conducting investigative experiments.
Judge and court officials — Referenced in case examples.

Summary Conclusion

The lecture emphasizes the critical role of investigative experiments in verifying the facts of criminal cases and ensuring justice. However, practical obstacles, legislative gaps, and judicial reluctance limit their use. Defense attorneys must be proactive, well-prepared, and utilize expert assistance to effectively employ investigative experiments. The current criminal procedure requires reforms to strengthen adversarial proceedings and clarify evidentiary rules.

End of Summary