Today I have a difficult task – to help the court find the truth.

socio-political assessment of the crime and the identity of the defendant; a description of the corpus delicti, which, in his opinion, was confirmed in court; a comprehensive analysis of the evidence collected and verified at the trial and substantiation of their position on the guilt of the defendant, the qualification of his actions and the punishment.

In addition, the prosecutor in his speech supports the claim filed by him or the civil plaintiff, if required by the protection of state or public interests or the rights of citizens, as well as expresses and substantiates his opinion on all other issues to be resolved by the court (Article 324 of the CPC of Ukraine).

The court speech of the public prosecutor must first of all reflect the attitude to the committed crime and the person of the defendant of the public organization or group of workers who authorized him to participate in the trial. However, the public prosecutor is an independent participant in the process and presents to the court his opinion on the proof of the accusation, the public danger of the committed crime and the identity of the defendant, based on the data of the judicial investigation. In his speech, he also has the right to express his views on the application of criminal law, punishment and other issues.

Court speeches of the civil plaintiff and the civil defendant or their representatives have as their main content issues related to compensation for property damage: proof or failure to prove the fact of the crime, the presence or absence of grounds for filing and satisfying the claim, its subject and amount of compensation. The issue of guilt of the defendant and the choice of punishment for him are not discussed by them, as it is not related to a civil lawsuit.

Judicial speech of a public defender, aimed at performing the function of protection. In it, the public defender sets out his court opinions on:

circumstances that mitigate the guilt of the defendant or justify him; opportunities to mitigate his punishment; suspended sentence or suspended sentence; opportunities to transfer the defendant on bail to a public organization or labor collective, on whose behalf the public defender participates in the consideration of the case.

Thus the public defender necessarily gives the characteristic of the person of the defendant, proceeding from his labor and public activity.

The court speech of the defense counsel, due to his function in the criminal process – the function of defense and is completely subordinated to the defense of the legitimate interests of his client. In its structure, it is usually similar to the speech of the public prosecutor. However, in its direction – sharply different from the speech of the prosecutor. In his speech, the defense counsel considers all the facts and evidence from the angle of the defendant’s interests, interprets them so as to refute the accusation, and if it is unequivocally proven – to mitigate his guilt and responsibility.

A reply is a part of a court speech, the main purpose of which is to briefly, in a concise form, draw the court’s attention to distortions of facts, conjectures and fundamentally incorrect judgments made by participants in debates in their speeches (Article 318 of the CPC of Ukraine).

Judicial speeches influence the formation of the judge’s inner conviction, help the court to better understand all the circumstances of the case summary for a tree grows in brooklyn, comprehensively, fully and objectively investigate these circumstances, establish the truth in the case and make the right decision.

The subject of a court speech in criminal cases in the court of first instance includes:

the actual circumstances of the case (paragraph 1 of Article 64, paragraph 1 of Article 324, Article 420, paragraph 1 of Article 448 of the CPC of Ukraine) and their socio-political assessment; analysis and evaluation of evidence (paragraph C of Article 318 of the CPC of Ukraine); legal assessment of the established factual circumstances – qualification of the crime (paragraph 2 of Article 64, paragraphs 2-4 of Article 324, paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the CPC of Ukraine); characteristics of the defendant, and, if necessary, other participants in the process (paragraph C of Article 64, paragraph 7 of Article 324, paragraph C of Article 420); issues related to the application of criminal punishment or release from it {n. From Art. 64, paragraphs 4, 6 of Art. 324 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine); issues related to the resolution of a civil claim (paragraph 4 of Article 64, paragraph 9 of Article 324 of the CPC of Ukraine); other issues that need to be resolved (paragraphs 10-14 of Article 324 of the CPC of Ukraine); analysis of the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of the crime (Articles 23, 23-2 of the CPC of Ukraine).

The subject of a court speech in civil cases in the court of first instance are:

1) the actual circumstances of the case; 2) evaluation of evidence; 3) proposals on the application of a law in the case; 4) proposals for a separate decision if there are grounds for this (Article 235 of the CPC of Ukraine).

Analysis of Art. 27, ZO GIC of Ukraine gives the chance to draw a conclusion that the subject of proof are:

circumstances by which the plaintiff substantiates his claims (grounds of the claim); the circumstances by which the defendant substantiates his objections (grounds for objection); other circumstances that are important for the proper resolution of the case.

And in general – the circumstances that must be established as grounds for resolving the dispute between the parties; all available legal facts and circumstances relevant to the case.

The necessary composition of the facts of the subject of proof is determined on the basis of substantive law, which regulates the disputed legal relationship. Yes, in accordance with Art. 456 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the basis of the claim, which is the subject of proof, includes facts that confirm: the existence of labor relations of the victim with a person (enterprise), injury or other damage to health in connection with the victim’s duties; occurrence of certain damage; the presence of losses and their size; fault of the organization in causing harm.

Difficulties and errors in determining the necessary fact of proof arise when the disposition of substantive law is relatively definite. These are the norms that regulate the issues of eviction due to the impossibility of cohabitation, the distribution of property of the spouses, etc., the application of which must take into account "gross negligence of the victim" "property situation", the interests of minor children or the interests of one spouse "(Article 454 of the Civil Code, Article 29 of the Marriage and Family Code, etc.) ‘.

Speaking in court in administrative cases, the participants must find out:

whether an administrative offense has been committed; whether the person is guilty of its commission; whether it is subject to administrative liability; whether there are grounds for the transfer of materials on an administrative offense to a friendly court, public organization; other relevant circumstances to the proper resolution of the case (Article 280 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses).

The subject of the court speech in the court of second instance when considering the case in cassation is:

criticism or substantiation of the correctness of a sentence or decision; substantiation of cassation submission or cassation appeal or their criticism; analysis and evaluation of additional materials; proposals for the issuance of a certain decision of the cassation instance.

Thus, the content of the court speech necessarily includes those elements that form its subject. However, it should be borne in mind that the content and form of the court speech are greatly influenced by the nature and scope of the case, the personality of the rhetorician, the court audience. The personality of the speaker and the court audience determine a certain construction and presentation of the court speech. As there are no identical cases and people, so there can be no identical court speeches.

Free mastery of forms of court speech is an art that, like any other art, can acquire a stencil from some rhetoricians. The main thing in the court speech is its content and the views of the rhetorician.

literature

Andrievsky SA Drama from life. Defensive speeches. – Petrograd, 1916. Annushkin VI The first Russian rhetoric. – M., 1989. Ancient rhetoric. – M., 1978. Apresyan GZ Oratory. – M., 1978. Aristotle. Rhetoric // Ancient rhetoric. – M., 1978. Aristotle. Poetics / Per. B. Yen. – K., 1967. Babych ND Fundamentals of speech culture. – Lviv, 1990. Bezmenova NA Neoritorica: problems and prospects // Semantics. Communication. Style. – M., 1983. Belchikov Yu. A. Speak clearly and simply. – M., 1980. Bondarenko 77. S. Court speech. – Lviv, 1972. Vasiliev AN Fundamentals of speech culture. – M., 1990. Vvedensky LA, Pavlova LG Culture and art of speech. – Moscow, 1984. Vernydubov IV Problems of supporting public prosecution under the laws of Ukraine: Abstract. dis …. cand. jurid. Science. – K., 1992. Statements of ancient Slavic legends or mythology, compiled by JF Golovatsky. – K. 1991.

01.07.2012

Rhetoric: a speech by a prosecutor. Abstract

The abstract presents the speech of the prosecutor in rejecting the charges in the criminal case of SI Melnyk

The consideration of a complex criminal case against the accused Serhiy Melnyk for the premeditated murder of citizen Leliuk Tetyana under aggravating circumstances is coming to an end.

The tragedy of this case is twofold:

first, the life of a young woman, mother of two young children, daughter of gray elderly parents, beloved wife of Igor Stepanovich Lelyuk was cut short; secondly, the preliminary investigation authorities accuse the young man, Melnyk Serhiy Ivanovych, who also has a family, parents, a good reputation at work and at the place of residence, of committing this most dangerous crime, and he denies his involvement in this crime …

As early as the beginning of the seventeenth century, the French writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote: "A thousand paths lead to error, and to the truth – only one."

Today I have a difficult task – to help the court find the truth. She is alone in the case: either the defendant Melnyk is guilty of premeditated murder of Mrs. Lelyuk under aggravating circumstances, or he is innocent. A careful analysis of the evidence gathered in the preliminary and judicial investigations will help me to follow the path of truth.

Preliminary investigation authorities accuse Serhiy Melnyk of committing the premeditated murder of Tatiana Lelyuk, a Greek woman, near her house on 4 Rivne, February 22, 1996 about 20 hours under the following circumstances: Melnyk met Lelyuk and offered to have sex with him. Lelyuk refused, then Melnyk took a stone from the ground and struck the victim in order to overcome her resistance. When Lelyuk fainted, he dragged her to the garden near the house # 6, raped her twice, and then killed her in order to hide the crime.

A criminal case on the fact of the murder of Tatiana Lelyuk was initiated on February 24, 1996 by a prosecutor’s office investigator on the grounds of a crime under Art. 94 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

On March 20, 1996, in the district police department, witness Melnyk confessed to raping and killing Lelyuk. And with him, as a witness in the case, the situation and circumstances of the event were reproduced.

On March 20, Melnyk was detained on suspicion of committing a crime under Article Zh. 93 of the Criminal Code, and interrogated by the district prosecutor without the participation of counsel. On March 21, the investigator charged Melnik and interrogated him without the participation of his lawyer.

According to the preliminary investigation body, Melnyk’s guilt in the crime was proved by the following evidence:

testimony of Melnyk as a witness, suspect, accused; protocol of reproduction of the situation and circumstances of the event; the conclusion of the examination of physical evidence, according to which the blood on the clothes of the defendant does not exclude the origin of the victim; conclusion of forensic examination.

In the trial, this evidence was carefully examined.

Share in
Tagged in