Vol 20, No 11/2 (2014)

The article is devoted to presenting separate, but very significant results of scientific activities of professor Sheifer Semen Abramovich. In particular, it discusses the forecasts of respected professor on the prospects of development of legislation on criminal proceedings, suitable options for reforming of its pre-trial phase, the conclusions of professor S.A. Sheifer on possibilities of improvement the effectiveness of preliminary investigation, strengthening of prosecutorial and judicial powers are interpreted.

In the article it is offered to consider the structure of proving in normative and logical and pragmatist aspects. The normative structure of proving is represented by four elements: collecting, check, assessment and use of evidence. The active structure, according to the authors, includes: formation of proofs, their check, assessment and use. The pragmatist structure of the very formation of proofs reflects active and passive aspects of cognitive activity of subjects of proof.

The article highlights some of the problematic issues of proving during the performance of inquiry in the abbreviated form. It is suggested to state the rule, according to which a simplified form of introductory investigation must be followed by a proceeding of a full value in a compulsory way.

The formation of evidence in the Russian criminal proceedings traditionally occurs on regulatory rules defining appropriate procedures and sources of information, compliance with which is a condition for the recognition of valid evidence. In recent years, changes in the law show trends that are not consistent with established formal criteria of evidence, which seems to be a significant problem for the theory and practice of evidence of activity in criminal proceedings.

This article defines the concept, the value of applications for admission of proofs inadmissible; it examines the form, the order of their declaration in the court of the first instance; the attention is paid to the grounds of inadmissibility of evidence

The article analyzes such properties of evidence in the criminal procedure legislation as pertinence and admissibility. It is offered to replace the term “pertinence” in the definition of appropriate property of evidence by the term “relevancy” as the most fully reflecting the property essence and significance. The treatment of notions “inadmissible evidence” and “not legally binding evidence”, which are not identical and are differentiated one from another is given. It suggests a new version of the text of the Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation “Inadmissible Evidences”.

This article deals with one of the most topical questions of advocacy – client-lawyer privilege. Imperfection of the rules adopted by the legislator causes the violation of the client-lawyer privilege on the part of the state bodies and in the first place – law enforcement bodies. Lacunae in legal remedy of communication privacy of a lawyer and his clients are analyzed.

In the article the legal status of the suspect and the accused in the criminal process of Russia is analyzed. The author claims that according to the principle of presumption of innocence the accused is the same as suspect, therefore it is necessary to exclude the accused from the participants of the criminal process. Introduction of changes offered by the author into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation will promote, in his opinion, elimination of an accusatory bias in the activity of investigators and judges.

The term «challenge» is used in procedural law and criminal procedure science to denote the number of legal phenomena. The article analyses challenge as a legal institution. The characteristics of this legal institution is presented, its subject matter is defined, its structural elements are revealed. Definition of challenge as an institution of criminal procedure law is given. It is proved that the essential characteristic of the institute of challenge gives the object of regulated relations. The author comes to the conclusion that the institution of challenge is not fully covered by Chapter 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. According to the author, challenge is interdisciplinary legal institute.