Goncharov's trip around the world. Around the world voyage on the frigate Pallada
Checking the readings began at 8 o'clock. 30 min., ends at 10 o'clock. 20 minutes.
Investigator of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Sovetsky district of Minsk, police captain Sych K.S. with the participation of a specialist - employee of the forensic department Ponchikov I.S. ? presence of witnesses Gushko I.K., living in hell
Resu: Minsk, st. Moskovskaya, 10, apt. 12, and Grishin YM., living at the address: M!insk, st. Vinogradnaya, 15, apt. 2, in connection with the investigation of criminal case No. 6354 on charges of Levin K.N. according to Part 1 of Art. Irf9 CC, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to verify and clarify the testimony of the accused Kosenko V.M. about the circumstances of the murder of citizen Uvarova V.K. went to the scene of the crime.
Before the investigative action was carried out, its participants were explained their right to be present at all actions carried out in the process of checking evidence on the spot, and to make statements and comments regarding the actions taken. All this is recorded in the protocol. Participants in the investigative action are notified that video recording will be used during its production.
In addition, attesting witness Gushko I.K. and Grishin Yu.M. the obligation to certify the fact, progress and results of the investigative action is explained.
(I.K. Gushko) (Yu.M. Grishin)
Specialist Ponchikov I.S. his responsibilities under Art. 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he was warned of liability for refusal and evasion of the duties of a specialist.
(I.S. Ponchikov)
Before leaving for the scene of the incident, O.N. Kosenko. reported that he intended to show the place where Uvarova was killed, as well as the method in which the murder was committed.
At the suggestion of O.N. Kosenko the whole group drove out to the street in a car. Surganov, Minsk. Arriving at the scene of the incident, Kosenko O.N. showed a place located near house No. 5, where he met Uvarova, from whom he wanted to take away a lady’s handbag and killed her. Kosenko explained: “Here I punched Uvarov in the face, but she began to resist me, so I hit her several times, she fell, and I kicked her in the head again.” Kosenko O.N. a female mannequin was provided, and
At the request of the investigator, the accused demonstrated how and where he struck the victim.
The accused Kosenko O.N. was asked to show the place where he hid Uvarova’s corpse. Kosenko stated: “When Uvarova resisted me, I knocked her down and began kicking her in the head. After I realized that she had died, I threw her into a hole prepared for the foundation of a new building and covered it with sand.”
After this Kosenko O.N. showed the place where he threw Uvarova’s corpse.
This concludes the testimony of O.N. Kosenko. was finished.
The investigative action was videotaped using a Panasonic video camera.
The protocol was read aloud by the investigator. No statements were received from participants in the investigative action.
The protocol has been read. Recorded correctly.
What are the procedures and grounds for checking evidence on site?
WITH What is the purpose of such a check?
Problem 212
An investigator, while investigating a case of bribe-taking by the director of a technical school, Sergeev, during interrogation of the accused, found out that the bribe was handed to him in the presence of his deputy, Petrova.
Having been called as a witness, Petrova stated that she knew nothing about this case. After this, the investigator familiarized her with the protocol of Sergeev’s interrogation. Petrova stated that she saw the father of one of the technical school students handing the director an envelope; she did not know what was in it. She did not want to testify about this, since she does not want to “travel around the court.”
Ladies,” she may be judged by her work colleagues, and besides, she does not want to spoil her relationship with the director. At the same time, she asked the investigator not to enter these words of hers into the protocol. When asked what services the bribe could have been given for, Petrova replied that she did not know, but assumed that it was for the reinstatement of the son of the man who handed the envelope to his studies.
Is it permissible for the interrogated person to present the interrogation report of another witness as a witness?
Does the investigator have the right not to include in the interrogation record that part of the testimony that the witness asks for?
Problem 213
On January 25, 2009, at 2 a.m., unidentified persons broke the glass of the door of a car parked in the courtyard of house 22 on the street. Ya. Kupala, 13, and stole a purse lying in the glove compartment, which contained 500 euros, and a leather jacket from the interior.
Witness Vislov from his balcony saw two guys near the specified car, he did not see their faces because it was dark, Street lights burned dimly. Vislov described the guys' clothes. Based on these signs, suspects Tankov and Tulyaga were detained. On the. During the interrogation, they testified that they were not in the city at night that day; they spent the night at the dacha of their friends in the village. Zhdanovichi.
The police officer on duty showed the detainees to the witness Vislov and asked if he had seen these guys near the car. Vislov replied: “Who knows, maybe they are, maybe not, because I saw them from the fourth floor balcony.”
Can the situation described have evidentiary value?
What other actions would you take in in this case?
Problem 214
Security guard Suscheeva was called as a witness in the case of the theft of products from a margarine factory on charges of this against shop foreman Deev.
During interrogation, Suscheeva stated that she knew the head of the workshop only by sight. He never lingered with stolen products. She doesn't know if he steals anything.
The investigator noted that he has information that she is Deev’s mistress and, if she does not want her husband and Deev’s wife to know about this, she must tell the truth.
Will the testimony of this witness have evidentiary value?
Problem 215
The witness appeared for questioning with a lawyer and stated that he would testify only in his presence. The investigator replied that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for the interrogation of a witness in the presence of third parties, in particular a lawyer.
The lawyer referred to Art. 62 of the Constitution of the Republic, cited its text and told the investigator that he was violating the Constitution and the client was refusing to testify without the presence of a lawyer.
The investigator agreed to conduct the interrogation in the presence of a lawyer. During the interrogation, the investigator asked the witness a question. The witness stated that he would answer this question only after consulting with a lawyer.
What should the investigator do?
Can npt. Are third parties present during the interrogation?
Is it possible to hold a witness criminally liable for refusing to testify in this case?
Problem 216
During the interrogation of the suspect, which lasted five hours, the defense lawyer told the investigator that he had violated the requirements of Part 2 of Art. 215 Code of Criminal Procedure. He must interrupt the interrogation, give the suspect the opportunity to rest, and he will inform the prosecutor about the violation of the law.
The interrogation was interrupted by the decision of the investigator for half an hour and resumed again. The investigator asked the suspect: “What other crimes have you committed? Where were you at 22:00 on June 15?” After the defense attorney raised objections to this question, he advised the client not to answer this question.
The investigator noted that the defense attorney does not have the right to interrogate him, and if he has any comments, then he h:,pls<" занести их в протокол.
What rights does the defense attorney have during interrogation?
Problem 217
In the investigation of the investigator of the police department there was ol Exactly 15 criminal cases. One of them had been lying without two for 20 days. The investigator believed that if the prosecutor or the head of the investigation department were to check this case, he would receive a penalty for inaction according to dekht
Since it was necessary to interrogate 6 bodies in the case, the investigator summoned them with subpoenas for a period of 30 minutes. He talked with each of them, took their testimony, warned them about the responsibility of giving false testimony, then handed each of them an interrogation report form, took them to a separate room and wrote their testimony in their own hand.
Does the operator comply with legal requirements?
Option: the investigator asked each witness to indicate the date of interrogation in the protocol. Having collected the ducts, he put different dates in them, creating the appearance that the work was ongoing.
Could this really be the case?
Can these actions of the investigator be classified as civil violations of procedural law?
Can they lead to negative legal consequences?
Problem 218
The investigator in the criminal case of bb Rape was trying to identify the suspect Pavlov, patiently Sidorchuk. Having examined those presented to her for identification, Sidorchuk stated that those being identified were very similar to each other and she found it difficult to identify the rapist.
Unexpectedly for everyone, the suspect said mockingly: “Well, you fool, you don’t even know who you are...! Yes it's me! Citizen investigator, it was I who dragged her into the forest, I remember her well and recognize her!”
Who and to whom can be presented for identification?
If so, how should this be formalized?
Problem 219
Kuntsev was detained two months after the crime was committed. By this time he had grown long hair, a beard and a mustache.
During interrogation, the victim stated that he could identify the attacker, named his signs, and, in particular, stated that the rapist had short hair and a smooth and clean face. During the identification parade, the victim stated that he did not recognize anyone.
Then the investigator released all the persons participating in the identification, and suggested to the remaining suspect that he cut his hair and shave off his beard and mustache, otherwise it would be done forcibly.
The suspect said that he would never do this and would write a complaint to the prosecutor about the investigator’s threat. How should an investigator act? Does he have the right to carry out his threat?
Is it possible to make identification in another way?
