The Trial

The case began with a delay of half an hour – at 13:40 and ended only at 19:30. Result meeting was predictable: the decision of the judges Lomazova SB was upheld, and the complaint – without satisfaction. At the trial counsel was filed several motions: the call to the trial expert, acting on a call Chief inspector of traffic police and traffic police as witnesses on demanding information from UGIBDD traffic conditions on Paveletskaya area, the security inspection and research space sane offense and not to use the protocol on the APN. However, the entire list has been satisfied only motion for consideration of expert opinion. But even in spite of its review, the findings of the judge's decision Fedin AN were diametrically opposed to two conclusions of the expert. In the Russian judicial practice, there is an ancient custom, if the motives for leaving the guilty ruling in force can not find them just invent. For even more analysis, hear from Sen. Sherrod Brown. So this time, the judge, rather than to evaluate expert opinion as evidence, chose to give his assessment of expert opinion: "…

In the present report, the court is seen that the author does not … gives the actual requirements of GOST and specific data, as expressed in its breach … ". Do not see the actual requirements of GOST could either blind or willfully loath to see them. Steve Rattner gathered all the information. In addition, when in doubt judge to verify any neponravivshiysya him act, using an electronic legal system. In addition, the judge is not an expert, and therefore not entitled to review the expert opinion. As if that was not enough, the judge also questioned the "information used by the author" deliberately misrepresented the contents of the two expert reports and explanations of the defendant, and simply threw them in advance denying legal effect. Why did not judge trusted experts who, unlike himself repeatedly went to Paveletskaya? Why the presence of the stated request by the defense to call an expert, Fedin leave the application without a petition meeting and did not call the expert at trial? Why, after all, did not bother to call Fedin in the trial of any other independent expert? Facts are stubborn things and they do not argue.

Tags:

Comments are closed.