Tactics of interrogation and confrontation. Topic: interrogation and confrontation tactics

Interrogation- a procedural action consisting of receiving and recording in the established procedural order the testimony of witnesses, victims, suspects and accused about facts known to them that are important for the correct resolution of the case.

Subject of interrogation There may be various kinds of circumstances related to the event under investigation.

There are different types of interrogation. Depending on the procedural position of the interrogated, the following are distinguished: interrogation of a witness; interrogation of the victim; interrogation of a suspect; interrogation of the accused.

If the classification is based on the age of the interrogated, the interrogation is divided into: interrogation of a minor; interrogation of a minor; interrogation of an adult.

The interrogation can be conducted without the participation of third parties, or with their participation, namely: with the participation of a defender, expert, specialist, parents or legal representatives of a minor, teacher, translator.

The interrogation may be: original; repeated; additional.

Often during an interrogation a conflict situation arises. As a rule, a conflict situation arises between the investigator and the suspect or accused. When conducting an interrogation in a conflict situation, the investigator uses the following tactics::

1. explains to the interrogated the meaning sincere confession and giving truthful testimony;

2. identifies motives for giving false testimony and eliminates these motives;

3. convinces with the help of logical arguments that attempts to give false testimony are pointless;

4. provides as much detail and specificity as possible in the testimony of the interrogated person;

5. presents evidence incriminating the interrogated person (starting with the most compelling or vice versa);

6. creates exaggerated ideas in the interrogated person about the investigator’s knowledge, etc.

The interrogation of the witness and the victim, as a rule, takes place in a non-conflict situation. The main interrogation techniques in a non-conflict situation are:

1. explaining to the interrogated the importance of his testimony for establishing the truth;

2. asking questions that activate associative connections in the mind of the person being interrogated:

3. presentation of photographs, diagrams, plans and other objects that facilitate recall;

4. familiarization of the interrogated with fragments of testimony of other persons;

5. a proposal to present the facts, strictly observing the sequence of events;

6. interrogation at the scene of the event.

Preparing for interrogation. A necessary condition for obtaining reliable and complete information during an interrogation is careful preparation for its conduct. Preparation includes:

1. studying the materials of the criminal case;

2. determining the range of circumstances for which it is necessary to obtain testimony;

3. study of the psychological characteristics of the interrogated;

4. ensuring the participation in the interrogation of persons provided for by law, as well as specialists, if their assistance is needed;

5. preparation of the necessary scientific and technical means.

When preparing to conduct an interrogation, the investigator thinks through the wording of the questions. and in what order they will be asked. If the case requires interrogation of several persons, then it is advisable to determine their sequence. You should not rush to interrogate those from whom you plan to obtain truthful testimony.

Preparation for interrogation is completed by drawing up a written plan, which outlines all the main parameters of the interrogation - time, tasks, range of issues to be clarified, their sequence, case materials and evidence that may be needed.

Features of interrogation tactics for minors. The tactics of interrogating a minor are based on his age characteristics. For minors, especially preschool and junior school age, characterized by increased suggestibility, a tendency to fantasize, and speculate on an incompletely perceived picture of the event that occurred. The life of minors is emotionally rich and the impressions they receive often contribute to forgetting what they have perceived. Therefore, their interrogation cannot be postponed for a long time.

When preparing for interrogation, it is necessary to obtain information about the level of development of the minor, his interests, inclinations, habits, and relationships with the person in respect of whom the interrogation will be conducted. A minor under 16 years of age is summoned for questioning through his parents or other legal representatives. A different procedure is permitted when required by the circumstances of the case.

When participating in the interrogation of a teacher, as well as legal representatives or close relatives of a minor, you must make sure in advance that the nature of their relationship with the minor will not negatively affect the interrogated person. These persons must be warned about the inadmissibility of any hints, leading questions, or irritation towards a minor.

It is preferable to conduct the interrogation of minors in a familiar environment - in a child care facility, school, or home. Psychological contact with the interrogated person will be facilitated by the calm, confident tone of the investigator and his benevolent manner of address.

When assessing the testimony of a minor, you should pay attention to the smoothness, memorization of the information he provides, the use of phrases that are not typical for the person being interrogated, and the presence of contradictions, which may indicate the influence of interested parties. The evidence obtained must be analyzed from the point of view of the presence of internal contradictions in them, as well as contradictions with other evidence.

Confrontation

Confrontation is an independent investigative action. Essentially, this is the interrogation of two previously interrogated persons in the presence of each other regarding significant contradictions that have arisen between their testimony. If these persons did not know each other before, then before confrontation presentation for identification is carried out. The investigator conducts a confrontation when it is necessary to find out which of the two interrogated persons is giving false testimony. In this case, at the confrontation, a kind of clash of testimonies occurs. Confrontation is effective means psychological impact on the person giving false testimony. At the same time, a confrontation is a complex investigative action. When it is carried out, it is possible that the person being interrogated will have a negative impact on the person giving truthful testimony.

Before the confrontation, it is necessary to carefully study the testimony of the interrogated, take into account their relationships, find out the essence of the contradictions that have arisen, outline the questions that should be asked, their sequence and decide the question of who will be interrogated first at the confrontation. Usually the first person to be interrogated is the one who, in the investigator's opinion, gives truthful testimony. Although in some situations it is fashionable to do the opposite, in the hope that false testimony affecting the interests of another person being interrogated will cause him to be indignant. As a result, he can report facts that he had previously kept silent about.

The procedure for conducting a confrontation is as follows (according to A.G. Filippov):

1. warning a witness or victim about criminal liability for evasion or refusal to testify and for giving knowingly false testimony;

2. question to both participants - do they know each other, since when and what kind of relationship do they have;

3. an invitation to the person who, in the opinion of the investigator, gives truthful testimony, to tell an event in relation to which there are contradictions in the testimony of the participants in the confrontation;

4. a question to the other participant - does he confirm the testimony of the first participant in the confrontation;

5. question to the first participant - does he insist on his testimony (if the answer to the previous question is negative);

6. a question to both participants - do they have questions for each other, do they want to supplement their testimony;

7. recording the progress and results of the confrontation.

§ 1. General provisions interrogation tactics

There is not a single criminal case in which interrogation is not carried out, which is the most effective means of obtaining and verifying evidence obtained from other sources.

The rules of interrogation are regulated in Art. Art. 187 - 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, they are mandatory for all persons conducting this investigative action. However, the criminal procedure law establishes only the basic rules of interrogation, which have general character. It does not and cannot provide for all the tactical techniques that must be applied in order to obtain and record the most reliable evidence in specific conditions.

These tactics largely depend on the nature of the criminal case and individual characteristics the person being interrogated. If the rules of interrogation established by the criminal procedural law are mandatory, and their failure to comply is considered a violation of the law and entails the invalidity of the results of the investigative action, then the use of certain tactics depends only on the discretion of the investigator and the specific investigative situation.

In the literature, interrogation is interpreted as an investigative action consisting in the direct receipt and recording by an authorized person of the testimony of a participant in criminal proceedings about circumstances relevant to the case.

Interrogation is one of the complex investigative actions that require the investigator to have deep professional knowledge, skill, communication culture, psychological skills. To successfully carry out this investigative action, the subject of proof must imagine what information and how can be obtained from the interrogated person.

In its general sense purpose of interrogation- obtaining complete, reliable and objective testimony, which is evidence. The range of tasks that are solved during the interrogation is defined as the subject of the interrogation, depending on the circumstances of the crime under investigation.

Investigative practice and forensic theory know several types of interrogation, which are distinguished on the following grounds:

1) according to procedural provisions the interrogated person is distinguished between interrogation of a witness, victim, suspect and accused, expert, specialist and other participants in the process;

2) by sequence A distinction is made between initial and re-examination. During the initial interrogation, the subject most often is to clarify the circumstances of the case in full. During repeated interrogation, the investigator again returns to the circumstances that are already known in general terms, in order to clarify them, specify them and identify possible contradictions;

3) depending on the amount of information received interrogation can be main or additional;

4) according to the age of the interrogated: interrogation of an adult, a minor and a minor;

5) by composition of participants: with the participation of a lawyer, teacher, specialist, translator, legal representatives.

Like any investigative action, interrogation is divided into three stages: preparatory, direct production and recording of results.

An important condition for effective and successful interrogation is its proper preparation. The content of these investigator actions includes:

Studying the materials of the criminal case;

Obtaining, if necessary, information from a knowledgeable person on special issues related to the subject of interrogation;

Studying the personality of the interrogated: his characteristics, interrogation protocols of relatives, acquaintances, etc.;

Drawing up an interrogation plan with a specific list of questions to be clarified;

Preparation of evidence that can be presented during interrogation;

Organization of optimal conditions for interrogation;

Choosing the time and method of calling for interrogation;

Preparation of technical means.

Due to the complexity of this investigative action, the direct conduct of the interrogation can be divided into three stages: general, free story stage and question-and-answer stage.

The general stage is to establish the identity of the person summoned for questioning: full name, position and place of work, place of residence, criminal record. Further, if the person being interrogated is a witness or victim, he is warned of criminal liability for refusal to testify and for giving knowingly false testimony; if the accused or suspect, then his attitude to the charge (suspicion) brought is clarified, the provisions of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

After completing these mandatory formalities, the investigator invites the interrogated person to tell himself about the circumstances relating to the criminal case under investigation. Here it is not recommended to interrupt the person giving testimony, even if the investigator already knows the facts being presented or if the person being interrogated gives false information.

The value of a free story is quite great, since the interrogated person reports the circumstances of the case known to him at his own discretion. Often the investigator learns about facts previously unknown to him, which allows him to put forward new versions. If the interrogated person in his story goes far from the topic of interrogation, then the investigator has the right to remind him of the need to testify on the merits of the case.

In the case when the interrogated person is silent about the information known to him or cannot remember individual facts or details of the crime, the data he provides contradicts the case materials, then the investigator proceeds to the question-and-answer stage. Here it is necessary to use tactical techniques that are selected depending on the current situation and the procedural position of the interrogated. However, you must always remember the general tactical recommendations, which boil down to the following:

It is not allowed to ask leading questions, i.e. those that implicitly contain the answer desired by the investigator;

Threats, deception and blackmail, physical or mental violence, humiliation of honor and dignity are unacceptable.

The behavior of the investigator during interrogation comes down to the fact that he must first of all establish psychological contact with the person being interrogated, instill his trust and respect. This can be achieved through attentiveness, calmness, seriousness and objectivity. The interrogation should be conducted politely, evenly, but at the same time, when necessary, show firmness and persistence. The investigator should not deceive the interrogated person, promise something that obviously cannot be fulfilled.

When choosing interrogation tactics, a number of conditions are taken into account, including the psychological characteristics of the formation of testimony, the specifics of the case under investigation and information about the personality of the interrogated.

Any testimony of a person during interrogation consists of the reproduction of facts of objective reality previously perceived and retained in memory. Consequently, the process of forming evidence can be divided into three conventional stages: perception, memorization and reproduction.

The nature of perception and its completeness depend on a number of objective and subjective factors. Objective conditions that negatively affect perception include: poor lighting, weather conditions, distance to the observed object, transience of the event, etc.

Subjective factors depend on the characteristics of the state of a person’s sensory organs, with the help of which he perceives facts, and his general state at the moment of perception. For example, fear heightens perceptions and promotes exaggeration of danger.

In addition, in some cases, subjective factors are the cause of unintentional lies. These include: a) old age, which can affect, for example, clarity of perception due to deterioration of vision and hearing; b) various types of injuries and diseases that negatively affect the process of correct perception, preservation and transmission of information; c) low educational and cultural level.

Using psychological data about sensations, perception, memorization and reproduction, during the interrogation process it is necessary to help restore forgotten circumstances in memory. Psychology data allows one to correctly determine the cause of incompleteness and contradictions in testimony, and help choose tactical techniques to fill gaps in testimony and eliminate contradictions in them.

Despite the individuality of the choice of tactical techniques, depending on the current investigative situation and the procedural position of the person, there are general rules or principles of interrogation, which include focus, activity, objectivity and completeness.

The purposefulness of the interrogation means that the investigator has a specific idea about the subject of the interrogation and carries it out in the right direction.

The activity of interrogation presupposes the ability of the investigator to maintain the initiative, to apply the most effective tactics in the current situation, while observing the requirements of the law, morality and ethics.

The completeness and objectivity of the interrogation means that, firstly, the investigator seeks to obtain all information related to the crime under investigation and, secondly, he does not have the right to change the testimony of the person being interrogated or impose his idea on him.

§ 2. Features of the tactics of interrogating witnesses and victims

Interrogations of witnesses and victims are the most common investigative actions carried out in criminal cases. According to Art. 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a witness is a person who may be aware of any circumstances relevant to the investigation and resolution of a criminal case, called to testify.

During the interrogation, the witness must indicate the source from which he became aware of the facts presented. In general, the law does not impose any age restrictions on witnesses. This participant in the investigation can be adults, minors, and even minors. However, the assessment of the information received should depend on their ability to actually perceive what is happening. In most cases, the witness is a person not interested in the investigation of the criminal case.

Victims according to Art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is an individual to whom a crime has caused physical, property, moral harm, as well as entity in the event of a crime causing damage to his property and business reputation. Unlike a witness, the victim has an interest in the investigation and its outcome. This circumstance, as well as knowledge of the materials of the criminal case, psychological condition at the time of the crime have a certain influence on his testimony, which must be taken into account when assessing them.

In addition, both the witness and the victim, as a rule, are bona fide participants in the preliminary investigation, and conflict situations rarely arise during their interrogations. With the exception of the stated procedural and psychological differences, the tactics of interrogating witnesses and victims are quite similar.

The success of interrogating witnesses and victims lies in obtaining from them reliable testimony about all known facts relevant to the case. To do this, the investigator must be well prepared for the interrogation of these persons. First of all, based on studying all the materials of the criminal case, he must outline the circle of persons to be called as witnesses, since they are capable of highlighting certain circumstances that are significant for the case. At the same time, it is necessary to avoid calling persons whose testimony cannot add anything to the facts already collected.

As practice shows, calling a smaller number of witnesses to a court hearing compared to the number of those questioned at the preliminary investigation stage is almost a common occurrence. However, the large difference in the number of witnesses questioned during the investigation and at the trial indicates that the investigator carried out this investigative action without proper preparation, without thinking through how necessary it was to call this or that person. Ideally, each interview with a witness should move the investigation forward.

Having carefully determined the circle of witnesses, the investigator outlines the order of their interrogation and the order of calling. Correctly resolving these seemingly technical issues is often essential to obtaining the most valuable and reliable information. testimony. In one situation, the investigator may plan to call witnesses in a certain order dictated by the interests of the investigation; in another, he may consider it more appropriate to call several witnesses at the same time. In this case, naturally, the witnesses called at the same time must be isolated from each other so that they cannot communicate with each other both before and after the interrogation.

When preparing to interrogate a witness or victim, the investigator must study in detail the available case materials. This will allow him to outline in advance the range of issues to be clarified. The frequent repeated interrogations of these persons are mainly explained precisely by the fact that the investigator had not previously examined known facts and as a result, I forgot to ask important questions for the case. The sequence of questions asked is also thought through.

When calling witnesses and victims for questioning, it is always advisable to collect information about those being questioned in order to be able to properly conduct the questioning and obtain the most valuable and reliable evidence. It is often recommended to have objective (and not obtained from the words of the interrogated) information about his attitude towards the accused, suspect, about their relationships, which will allow the investigator to form a certain idea about the witness or victim.

The law does not establish a specific place for interrogating a witness or victim. Depending on the circumstances of the case and existing conditions, the investigator may conduct interrogations of these persons both at the place of the investigation and at the location of these persons. Providing the investigator with a choice of the place of interrogation serves the purpose of ensuring the receipt of reliable testimony and the most effective interrogation.

The direct conduct of the interrogation begins, as already noted, with a general stage, during which, according to the law, the investigator must: verify the identity of the witness or victim; establish their relationship to the parties; warn about criminal liability for refusal to testify and for giving knowingly false testimony, making the necessary notes in the protocol.

The identification of witnesses and victims does not only involve interviewing them and recording their personal information in the protocol. The investigator must check the passport or other identification documents of the summoned persons. This is explained by the fact that the investigation is not always carried out by the investigator who initiated the criminal case, who went to the scene of the incident and is already familiar with the witnesses and victims. In addition, in investigative practice there are cases when, instead of a called witness, another person appears, posing as an eyewitness to a crime. Checking the documents of summoned persons will eliminate the possibility of false witnesses testifying.

Quite important is the requirement for the investigator to establish the relationship of the witness and the victim to the parties. This must be done primarily for the subsequent correct assessment of the testimony of these persons.

In investigative practice, there are often cases of deliberate giving of false testimony by a witness or victim on the basis of hostile or, conversely, friendly, close relations with the accused or suspect. Such witnesses and victims are usually driven by a feeling of revenge, a desire to harm their enemy, or a feeling of pity. But even after finding out the availability special relationship between these persons, the investigator should not come to a clear conclusion about the unreliability of their testimony. He is obliged to more carefully and thoroughly check the evidence received and evaluate its reliability in comparison with other materials in the case.

No less important is the third requirement of the law, which is to warn the witness and the victim about criminal liability for refusing to testify and for giving knowingly false testimony. Such a warning serves as a certain guarantee that the witness and the victim will give the most reliable testimony, will try to more accurately reproduce in them everything perceived and preserved in memory, and will force them to treat the circumstances presented with responsibility.

Next, at the free-story stage, the investigator invites the witness or victim to state everything they know about the case on their own. When presenting testimony, the interrogated person has the opportunity to concentrate better, remember everything he saw or heard, and more correctly and accurately reproduce the details of the events described. In addition, during a free story, a witness or victim can report facts that were not known to the investigation.

At the end of the free story, if necessary, the investigator asks the interrogated questions aimed at concretizing and clarifying the testimony received, as well as at clarifying data that was not mentioned in the free story.

In some cases, clarifying and additional questions may be necessary to help the witness or victim update forgotten circumstances. Such reminder questions should not be leading. For example, you cannot ask: “The person you saw was in gray coat?" The correct wording of the question in this case would be: “What color coat was the person you saw wearing?”

If the witness does not refer to the sources of his knowledge, then it is necessary to ask questions aimed at identifying these sources or data with which his testimony can be confirmed.

In order to expose possible or suspected lies in the testimony of witnesses interested in the outcome of the case, the investigator formulates questions in such a way as to clarify the circumstances under investigation with exhaustive completeness and in the smallest detail. As practice shows, a witness who gives false testimony is not able to prepare in advance for a detailed interrogation, to provide for all the details of the event that the investigator may ask about. If you carefully analyze such testimony and compare it with other evidence, it will not be difficult to expose the lie. The testimony will turn out to be contradictory and will contain a number of significant errors in the description of the details of the event, facts, persons and objects.

When investigating criminal cases, in some cases, bribery of a witness or victim may occur in order to give unreliable testimony. Typically, this is initiated by relatives of the suspect or accused and other interested parties (members of an organized crime group remaining at large, accomplices, etc.). In such a situation, it is not always possible to identify the existence of special relationships between these subjects. However, in this case, the investigator must compare the evidence received with the materials of the criminal case, find out the reason for the change in the testimony of the witness or victim and take measures to eliminate the influence on them from the opposing side.

In some cases, in order to establish the truth, the investigator may detail in the interrogation protocol the testimony of a witness that contradicts other evidence, and after signing the protocol, present him with evidence that refutes the previously given testimony, and ask questions that require the witness to provide a detailed explanation of the contradictions that have arisen. These questions and answers are recorded as verbatim as possible in the minutes.

In addition to proper preparation for the interrogation, knowledge of the psychology of the testimony of the witness and the victim, studying their personality and attitude to the crime under study, it is recommended to observe the interrogated. At the same time, the investigator notices certain changes in their behavior (rudeness, harshness, attentiveness), mood (depressed, joyful) and external manifestations (pale, blushed, worried) and, taking into account the psychology of the interrogated, finds the correct explanation for them, drawing the necessary conclusions and adjusting interrogation tactics accordingly.

The results of the investigator's observation of the interrogated persons, naturally, are not entered into the protocol, since they are not evidence. The investigator takes them into account only in order to delve into the psychology of the interrogated, correctly evaluate the testimony given and, as a result, ensure their veracity.

The testimony of the witness and the victim must be complete. In some cases, witnesses or victims, not knowing what exactly is important to the case, may not talk about the most important things unless the investigator directly asks them about it. Such participants in the investigation do not pursue the goal of deceiving the investigator or concealing facts known to them from him. They simply do not know that these facts are important to the case, and sometimes do not suggest the existence of any connection between the known circumstances and the crime being investigated. In such cases, finding out everything known to the witness or victim depends solely on skillful preparation for the interrogation and on the correct tactics.

The success of the interrogation of a witness and a victim depends on the ability of the investigator to direct the attention and memory efforts of these persons to the correct coverage of the circumstances known to them and that are significant in the case, to help the witness remember and truthfully state forgotten details, to correctly formulate control questions, and as a result of all this to obtain reliable testimony.

Has some features interrogation of minor witnesses, which are determined by the properties and degree of their development. A fairly common mistake made by many investigators is that they do not see much of a difference between interrogating adults and minors, and especially minor witnesses. Their testimony is presented in the language of an adult, and questions are asked without taking into account the child’s psychology. Investigators often consider the testimony of children to be more sincere and truthful, which is also a mistake. Children have great powers of observation, but we must not lose sight of the tendency of children, especially young ones, to fantasize and their suggestibility.

It is also impossible not to take into account the fact that minors often misperceive environment. They often unconsciously fill in the gaps in their memory with the stories they hear. In addition, children are easily excitable, sometimes in an unusual interrogation environment, out of excitement, they incorrectly reproduce in their testimony what they heard or saw. In a number of cases, the unreliable testimony they give is the result of the minor’s desire to quickly get rid of the investigator’s questions, and often the desire to boast of his knowledge.

The interrogation of minor witnesses should be resorted to only in the absence of other opportunities to establish the sought facts. Having recognized the need to interrogate a minor witness, the investigator must carefully prepare for this investigative action. He studies the personality of the minor, his social circle, decides in whose presence (teacher, psychologist) the interrogation should be carried out, chooses the place and method of calling for interrogation.

The investigator finds out the degree of development of the minor or juvenile, their characteristics (impressiveness, observation, shyness, timidity, etc.), interests, with whom, in what setting and environment he lived, with whom he communicated. last period time, whether he could have been influenced and influenced by interested parties. All this is extremely necessary for the tactically correct interrogation of a minor witness or victim, ensuring the subsequent assessment of their testimony.

When resolving the question in whose presence to interrogate a minor, the investigator takes into account that it is most advisable to interrogate him in the presence and with the participation of a relative or close person who treats him well and whom the child trusts. Often, shy children do not want to talk to an investigator who is completely unfamiliar to them and answer his questions. In such cases, the presence of close persons provides the investigation with an invaluable service, since it calms the minors, and they, listening to these persons, tell the investigator everything they know about the criminal case.

However, the investigator must also take into account that sometimes parents or relatives are interested in the outcome of the case, and therefore in the certain content and nature of the minor’s testimony. In such cases, these persons, being present during the interrogation, through facial expressions, gestures, individual remarks, and the tone of the conversation, can influence the interrogated person and force the minor to give false testimony. Therefore, if the investigator is not completely sure that the parents or relatives of the minor are not interested in the outcome of the case, they cannot participate in this investigative action. Then it is advisable to invite a teacher or child psychologist. The presence of this specialist is necessary in all cases where the investigator has doubts about the minor’s ability to testify. The psychologist will subsequently give an opinion on the ability of the interrogated person to correctly assess the current picture.

An equally important issue is the choice of place for questioning a minor or young witness. It must be taken into account that a special atmosphere must be created for the interrogation of a minor. It is irrational to carry out this investigative action in an official setting. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it is advisable to interrogate a minor or young witness at school, kindergarten, or at his place of residence, i.e. in an environment that is familiar and familiar to the child. In addition, it is important to think in advance about the wording of the questions to be clarified, taking into account the development and individual characteristics of the person being interrogated.

Calling a minor witness in some cases can be done by subpoena, which does not apply to a minor interrogated, who is invited through a teacher, educator, or parents. In another case, the investigator appears at school, kindergarten, etc. without warning. to conduct the interrogation and invites adults on site. But in all cases, based on the interests of the case, the investigator must prevent the possibility of negative influence on the minor from adults.

Given the increased sensitivity and impressionability of minors, the tone of the investigator during interrogation is of great importance. Official speech, which can only frighten a minor, make him wary and withdraw into himself, is completely unacceptable. The questions formulated should be simple and understandable to the person being questioned. Knowing, for example, that a minor is timid and shy, the investigator tries to get him to talk by talking about topics that interest the teenager. In general, the entire interrogation of a minor should take place in a conversational mode.

A properly organized and conducted interrogation of a minor or young witness (victim) consists of the investigator’s skillful approach to the interrogated person, resulting in a frank and truthful statement of facts that are important to the case. No interrogation tactics can replace the creative initiative of the investigator, a thoughtful and sensitive attitude towards the interrogated, and the establishment of psychological contact with him.

A teacher, psychologist, and parents present during the interrogation can assist the investigator in conducting it. In particular, they can reformulate the questions to be clarified and make them more accessible to minors. If oddities are detected in the behavior of a minor, for example, excessive isolation, obvious fantasizing, sudden aggression, the investigator may order a forensic psychiatric or psychological examination, ensuring the presence of a medical specialist during the interrogation, who will subsequently give an opinion on the ability of the minor or juvenile to be a witness.

§ 3. Features of tactics for interrogating a suspect

and the accused

According to Art. 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the accused appears in the investigation process from the moment a decision is presented to him to implicate him as an accused. An investigative body that has not collected evidence sufficient to bring charges is deprived of the right to take any coercive measures against a suspected person. However, before charges are filed, a suspect may appear in the investigation of a criminal case. According to Art. 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is a person against whom a criminal case has been initiated, detained in accordance with Art. Art. 91, 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, to which a preventive measure was applied before charges were brought in accordance with Art. 100 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Compulsory measures against a suspect are limited to short periods.

As investigative practice shows, not a single investigative action confronts the investigator with such a variety of requirements as the interrogation of the suspect and the accused. However, it is impossible to give an exhaustive list of these requirements, since they arise from each specific case, from the entire sum of the features inherent in a given criminal case. These requirements are directly dependent on the nature of the crime, the severity of its consequences, the severity of the punishment, the motives for the crime and the details of its commission, the personality of the accused, his age, character and intelligence, marital status, etc.

In accordance with the totality of these circumstances, the main requirements for the investigator can be identified, namely:

a) preliminary thorough preparation for interrogation, analysis of the evidence available in the case against the accused or suspect and the explanations they have already given;

b) objectivity during the interrogation of the suspect and accused, careful consideration of all the justifying arguments, references and explanations they present; absence of any bias towards these persons;

c) observation during interrogation of the nuances of the interrogated person’s behavior, his reaction to certain questions, his calmness or irritability, confidence or fear, excitement or apathy, anger or remorse;

d) timely consideration of the individual characteristics of the accused or suspect, character crime committed, the line that the interrogated takes during the investigation;

e) calmness and confidence (but not self-confidence) of the investigator, his perseverance, attentiveness and tact in the search for the truth.

In the general rules for interrogating an accused (suspect), it is necessary to emphasize the importance of purposefulness of interrogation. The investigator must always clearly know exactly what circumstances he wants to find out from the interrogated person, why he needs them, what kind of testimony he is waiting for, and what significance this testimony will have for the further course of the investigation.

When interrogating an accused or suspect, the investigator proceeds from the norms established by the criminal procedural law that define their rights and guarantees. It is important to remember that the interrogation of these persons is an investigative action that actually ensures their right to defense, to provide exculpatory or mitigating evidence.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that a thoughtful professional investigator uses the interrogation of the accused not only as a way to obtain new evidence, but also as the best test of preliminary conclusions, versions, and his first impression. Considering this type interrogation from this position, we can say that it allows you to check the correctness of the direction in which the investigation is going, and to correct mistakes in a timely manner if they have already been made.

In order to draw the necessary conclusions from the interrogation, the investigator must carefully listen to all the objections of the interrogated, and not annoyedly brush them aside, weigh all his explanations and, in their light, re-evaluate, and sometimes re-evaluate, the circumstances that seemed established before the interrogation.

In addition, during the preliminary investigation, there are cases when suspects or accused use well-thought-out provocations against the investigator, making slanderous accusations against him, accusing him of bias, settling personal scores, and using illegal methods of investigation. Taking advantage of the investigator’s inexperience, excessive gullibility, and insufficient knowledge of the case materials, such accused or suspects prepare in advance “objective” evidence of the “correctness” of their future slanderous fabrications. For example, they willingly “confess” to a really committed crime, but report such fictitious details, fantastic details that did not exist, but which are then very easy to refute in court, declaring: “Now you see what my forced confession is worth and how much "It is far from the truth. This is the best proof of my innocence and the illegality of the investigative methods used against me."

Often, young investigators, having received such a “confession,” do not collect other evidence of the accused’s guilt, and after his refusal to “admit” guilt, the accusation hangs in the air, and the time for collecting other evidence is lost.

Due to the considerable complexity of interrogating an accused or suspect, of great importance their testimony for the investigation of a criminal case plays an essential role in achieving positive result has preparation for this investigative action.

Studying the case materials before interrogation, the investigator draws up preliminary results indicating the guilt of the accused, analyzes all direct and indirect evidence, as well as all circumstances that, although not fully established, must be clarified in detail during the interrogation. The investigator also carefully studies all the data that speaks in favor of the interrogated person, preliminarily outlines the range of questions necessary for clarification, examines material and written evidence discovered during other investigative actions, and evaluates the possibility of their presentation during the interrogation.

Collecting information about the identity of the accused and suspect is carried out in various ways. These include: biography, main profession, service, criminal records and other identifying information that can be obtained from colleagues, neighbors, by reading correspondence, official requests, etc. It is important to remember here that the explanations of neighbors and colleagues usually require certain additions, verification and clarification. In particular, characteristics obtained from witnesses - neighbors and colleagues - must be assessed with caution, clearing them of personal accounts, hostility, desire to exaggerate something and aggravate the situation of the accused (suspect) or, conversely, to help to a loved one, help him out.

Confrontation- this is an investigative action provided for in Art. 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which consists of alternate interrogation in the presence of each other of two previously interrogated persons from among the witnesses, victims, suspects and accused, in whose testimony there are significant contradictions. A specific feature Confrontations are special psychological conditions of interrogation.

Along with the general goal of establishing the reliability of testimony during a confrontation, the following specific tasks can be set: exposing lies, overcoming honest delusions, self-incrimination, checking the evidence collected in the case, exposing staging.

The question of the significance of the contradictions is decided by the person conducting the investigation. Contradictions are significant if they arise regarding the circumstances to be proven, as well as regarding facts relevant to the case.

When preparing to carry out the investigative action under consideration, the question always arises whether, even if there are significant contradictions in the testimony of previously interrogated persons, it is necessary to conduct a confrontation for tactical reasons. Conducting a confrontation is the right, not the obligation of the investigator. Its results may have various consequences. The possibility cannot be ruled out that one of the participants in the confrontation may persuade the other to give false testimony that is advantageous to himself. In addition, premature familiarization of confrontation participants with evidence collected during the investigation may lead to negative consequences. In this regard, it is important to promptly neutralize the negative influence of one participant on another, while simultaneously using truthful testimony to incriminate dishonest participant investigative action under consideration.

Confrontation is not the only and, of course, not an absolute way to establish reliable data on the case. Therefore, before deciding on its implementation, it is recommended to try to achieve this goal by carrying out other investigative actions and tactical and psychological techniques (repeated interrogations with the presentation of evidence and the use of effective tactics, playing a phonogram, video, sound recording, etc.).

Thus, if significant contradictions are identified in the testimony of two previously interrogated persons, there is no need to rush into a confrontation. We must try to collect evidence with the help of which these contradictions can be eliminated. That is why in most situations confrontations are carried out at a subsequent stage of the investigation.

At the same time, one cannot fail to note the positive significance of confrontation as a means of direct psychological influence of one participant in a confrontation, giving truthful testimony, on another.

Preparing for a confrontation

First, it is necessary to determine whether it is timely and advisable to conduct a confrontation, whether other investigative actions have been carried out, which are the procedural and tactical prerequisite for a confrontation. By the time the confrontation is carried out, reliable information about the character, behavior, volitional and moral-psychological qualities of its participants should be obtained. Special attention is devoted to the study of their relationships (how long have they known each other, were there any conflicts or hostile relationships between them, was one of them under the influence of the other, etc.).

The tactics for conducting a confrontation are developed depending on the reasons for the significant contradictions that arose in the testimony of its participants. Contradictions may be the result of honest misconception, involuntary errors of one or both interrogated persons, arising from the nature of the formation of testimony (errors in perception, memorization, reproduction), i.e. due to objective and subjective features of the perception of certain events. But, as a rule, contradictions in testimony arise due to deliberate lies of one or both participants in the confrontation.

Based on an in-depth analysis of the case materials, the investigator determines the reasons for significant contradictions in the testimony of previously interrogated persons and, depending on this, decides on the feasibility and tactics of conducting a confrontation. The reasons for the contradictions identified during the investigation are to a certain extent speculative, but such an analysis is necessary to develop the most effective tactics.

Tactics of confrontation in case of unintentional errors in the testimony of interrogated persons

It is characterized by the psychological contact of its participants and their mutual desire to establish the authenticity of certain circumstances. Contradictions are resolved through the mutual efforts of the participants in the confrontation. The actions of the investigator should be aimed at activating their psychological properties.

If significant contradictions are identified in the previously obtained testimony of those being interrogated, the cause of the contradictions must be established during separate interrogations of these persons and an attempt must be made to eliminate it by activating the memory of the interrogated using the evidence collected during the investigation, through their most effective presentation, including video or audio recordings of the testimony of third parties , as well as through interrogations at the scene of the event, which will have a beneficial effect on the activation of associative connections.

A confrontation is hardly advisable if one of its participants is highly suggestible, and therefore he may change his testimony not as a result of recall, but under the influence of another participant in the confrontation.

Allowing for the possibility of the participants in the confrontation asking each other, discussing controversial issues, the investigator continues to actively manage the conduct of the confrontation and takes measures to eliminate the identified contradictions. By asking additional questions, the investigator should identify details that the interrogated could remember through communication and joint discussion of past events about which they had disagreements.

Confrontation tactics aimed at exposing lies

In most cases, confrontations are carried out to eliminate significant contradictions that have arisen as a result of deliberately false testimony of suspects and accused, and less often - of witnesses and victims. When conducting face-to-face bets in such a situation, the following tactics are recommended:

1) use of the testimony of the organizers and most active participants in criminal activity, who admitted to committing a crime and gave detailed testimony in the case;

2) dividing the subject of the confrontation into several episodes (controversial issues) and gradually clarifying each of them using not only the testimony of the second participant in the confrontation, but also other evidence (documents, physical evidence, expert opinions, investigative reports, video or sound recordings testimony of other accomplices, victim or witnesses, etc.). A study of investigative practice has shown that the effectiveness of a confrontation increases significantly if the investigator does not conduct it in isolation, but in combination with other investigative actions, primarily with interrogations, presentation for identification, checking testimony on the spot and, of course, with other confrontations.

Provided for in Part 3 of Art. 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigator’s right to present material evidence and documents during a confrontation must be used when other evidence at his disposal is not strong enough. In this situation, the insufficient evidentiary power of physical evidence and documents is supplemented (compensated) by the psychological stress of the confrontation itself and comprehensively enhances the impact of the evidence presented. If the investigator has a large amount of strong evidence at his disposal, then it is usually advisable to use it during interrogations;

3) confrontation during the interrogation of the accused (suspect). This situation is possible if the investigator decided during the interrogation to use the evidence collected in the case, including the testimony of accomplices and witnesses, to expose the false testimony of the accused (suspect). In such cases, the investigator interrupts the interrogation, conducts one or more confrontations, after which the interrogation continues;

4) repeated confrontations are appropriate if a conscientious participant in the confrontation remembered new facts that will help clarify previously clarified controversial circumstances, or if the person who gave truthful testimony changed them at the first confrontation, but later returned to this testimony and is ready at the repeated confrontation, confirm them and explain the reasons for the change in truthful testimony;

5) detailing the circumstances to be clarified in a confrontation, which will make it possible to identify internal contradictions in the testimony of an unscrupulous participant in the confrontation and persuade him to give truthful testimony;

6) conducting a series of confrontations or conducting confrontations in the structure of a tactical operation or in the structure of a tactical combination.

It is inappropriate to conduct a confrontation if one of its participants, although he gives truthful testimony, reluctantly agrees to participate in it and there is reason to believe that under the influence of another participant in the confrontation he may change his testimony.

As a rule, during a confrontation, the person who, in the opinion of the investigator, takes a truthful position, is the first to testify, since if a different order is chosen, the conflicting subject may negatively affect the other participant in this investigative action.

Recording the progress and results of the confrontation

Recording the progress and results of a confrontation has its own characteristics. During its production, you can make rough notes, and a protocol can be drawn up at the end of this investigative action. However, another option is more optimal, when the protocol is drawn up during a confrontation. Questions and answers are recorded and signed during the confrontation in the order in which they were asked by the investigator. The questions that the participants in the confrontation ask each other, and the answers to them, are also recorded sequentially and signed by the interrogated. In addition, they sign each page and the protocol as a whole.

When conducting a confrontation, it is recommended to use video or sound recording and other technical means of recording, which will avoid the loss of evidentiary information. The use of video or sound recording and other technical means reduces the possibility of collusion between participants in confrontations, since they take into account that their testimony is being recorded. At the end of the confrontation, film, sound and video recordings are listened to and viewed by all participants.

Interrogation- the most common of all investigative actions. At first glance, conducting an interrogation does not present any particular difficulties. However, this ease is only apparent. Those being interrogated do not always give truthful and objective testimony. Very often, it is possible to obtain such testimony only after long, persistent efforts of the investigator, as a result of the skillful use of a number of tactical techniques.

Interrogation during a preliminary investigation can be defined as an investigative action consisting of obtaining and recording, in the manner prescribed by law, the testimony of witnesses, victims, suspects, accused, experts or specialists about facts known to them that are important for the case under investigation.

The criminal procedure law regulates in detail the procedure for preparing and conducting an interrogation, the rights and obligations of the person conducting the interrogation and the persons being interrogated (Articles 173-174, 187-191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The interrogation is usually carried out in the investigator's office, but can also be carried out in another place if the investigator deems it necessary.

According to Art. 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, interrogation cannot continue continuously for more than four hours. Continuation of the interrogation is allowed after a break of at least one hour for rest and eating, and the total duration of the interrogation during the day should not exceed eight hours. If there are medical indications, the duration of the interrogation is established based on the doctor’s opinion.

A witness or victim is summoned for questioning by subpoena or other means (by telephone, telegram). If the person summoned for questioning does not appear on time and does not notify the investigator in advance of the reasons for his failure to appear, he may be brought in by force. A person under the age of 16 is called through his legal representatives or through the administration at the place of work or study. A different order of calling is allowed if it is caused by the circumstances of the case. The serviceman is summoned for questioning through the command of the military unit.

All persons summoned in one case are interrogated separately, and the investigator takes measures within his power to prevent them from communicating with each other before the interrogation.

Before interrogation, the investigator is obliged to verify the identity of the person being interrogated, then explains to the person his rights, responsibilities and the procedure for conducting the interrogation. The interrogated person (except for the suspect and the accused) is also warned about liability for knowingly false testimony and for refusal to testify. If the investigator has doubts whether the interrogated person speaks the language in which the investigation is being conducted, then he finds out in what language the interrogated person wishes to testify.

Asking leading questions is prohibited. Otherwise, the investigator is free to choose interrogation tactics.

The interrogated person has the right to use documents and records.

At the initiative of the investigator or at the request of the interrogated person, photography, audio or video recording, filming may be carried out during the interrogation, the materials of which are stored in the criminal case and are sealed after the completion of the preliminary investigation.

If the witness came for questioning with a lawyer, the latter has the right to give him brief consultations in the presence of the investigator, ask questions with the permission of the investigator, and make written comments regarding the correctness and completeness of the entries in the protocol. The investigator may dismiss the lawyer's questions, but is obliged to enter the dismissed questions into the protocol. At the end of the interrogation, the lawyer has the right to make statements about violations of the rights and legitimate interests of the witness. These statements must be entered into the protocol.

The interrogation of a victim or witness under the age of 14 years, and at the discretion of the investigator from 14 to 18 years old, is carried out with the participation of a teacher. When interrogating a minor victim or witness, his legal representative has the right to be present. Victims and witnesses under the age of 16 are not warned of responsibility for refusing to testify and for giving knowingly false testimony - they are explained that they must tell only the truth, everything that they know about the case.

The accused must be questioned immediately after being charged. Before the interrogation, he may have a meeting with the defense lawyer alone and confidentially, without limitation of duration. At the beginning of the interrogation, the investigator must find out from the accused whether he pleads guilty, whether he wishes to testify on the merits of the accusation and in what language. If the accused refuses to testify, the investigator makes a note about this in the interrogation record.

Repeated interrogation of the accused on the same charge if he refuses to testify at the first interrogation can be carried out only at the request of the accused himself.

As a rule, the interrogation of any participant in the process actually falls into three stages:

• 1) finding out the necessary information about the identity of the person being interrogated (filling out the questionnaire part of the protocol);
• 2) free story;
• 3) question-answer stage (some authors identify a fourth stage - recording the progress and results of the interrogation).

It is not recommended to interrupt the interrogated during a free story; Of course, the investigator can ask clarifying and specific questions, but, as a rule, they should not be reflected in the protocol. The first two stages are mandatory; the third (question-answer) is optional. If the investigator, having recorded the testimony of the interrogated, given during a free story, sees that all the circumstances of the event are set out in the protocol quite fully and accurately, there is no need to ask any additional questions.

Types of interrogation during the preliminary investigation vary depending on:

• 1) the procedural status of the person being interrogated (interrogation of a witness, victim, suspect, accused, expert, specialist);
• 2) the age of the person being interrogated (interrogation of an adult, a minor, a juvenile);
• 3) the composition of participants (without the participation of third parties, with the participation of a defender, expert, specialist, parents or legal representatives of a minor, teacher, translator);
• 4) place of interrogation;
• 5) the nature of the investigative situation (conflict-free or conflict). A conflict-free situation during interrogation is characterized by a complete or predominant coincidence of interests of the interrogator and the interrogated and usually arises when a victim or witness is interrogated. On the contrary, a conflict situation, as a rule, arises during the interrogation of a suspect or accused who does not want to give truthful testimony and resists the investigator;
• 6) whether this person has been interrogated in this case before or whether he is being interrogated for the first time (initial or initial, repeated, additional interrogation). An interrogation is considered repeated when testimony is again given on issues on which they were already given at the previous interrogation or during previous interrogations; additional - when testimony is given on issues that were not covered during previous interrogations. Moreover, if during the initial interrogation the questionnaire part of the protocol was filled out completely and correctly, it is not filled out during repeated and additional interrogations.

Special specific type interrogation is a confrontation.