Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

The provincial court duly based its conclusions on the evidence obtained and examined at trial directly by the court. All evidence supporting the charges was also taken into account, verified, and evaluated.

However, the event of the crime associated with Petrov’s death, described in the verdict as cited from the indictment, could not but raise a whole lot of questions that require answers to resolve ambiguities and doubts.

According to the story chosen by the investigation, the plan to physically eliminate the entrepreneur Petrov was devised by Porokhov, Leskov, and Pervushin in an unknown place. Leskov, under unknown circumstances, found the perpetrator of the assassination – Pastukhov, who killed Petrov next to his house with three shots from a TT pistol and left the scene in a car with Bragin.

Porokhov, under unknown circumstances, paid Pastukhov, Leskov, Pervushin, and Bragin for the kill an unknown amount of money.

Thus, the most important role in the crime was assigned, apart from Porokhov, to Leskov and Pastukhov. According to the indictment, Leskov was also one of the masterminds behind the plan and the execution of the attempted murder of Pyzhov, Yezhov, and Kozhin, as well as the gang attack on Yezhov’s family with the aim to kill Barinova, Sukhova, and minor child Svetlova.

However, the identities of Leskov and Pastukhov were not established by the preliminary investigation, and no information was obtained from those persons. For that reason, they could not be questioned in court.

The acquitted Porokhov did not admit his guilt of the offenses charged. He said that Petrov was his acquaintance, that they had a normal relationship, and that he had never had a motive to kill Petrov.

The acquitted Pervushin did not admit his guilt and claimed he had nothing to do with the murder of Petrov.

The acquitted Perov, Sergeyev, and Moiseyev also denied their guilt on the charges. Each of them presented detailed arguments in their defense, which were analyzed by the court and duly evaluated in the verdict. In particular, Sergeyev confirmed at trial his alibi that he had provided before, during the pre-trial investigation.

A considerable part of the cassation appeal is dedicated to the testimony of Knyazev, Bednyakov, Bragin, and witness Prudon.

However, the analysis of the testimony those persons gave during the preliminary investigation and in court, compared with other evidence, suggests that none of those statements, standalone or in aggregate, allows making any specific conclusion regarding the culpability of Knyazev, Bednyakov, Bragin, or other persons charged.

As correctly stated in the protest, witness Prudon’s testimony to the pre-trial investigation pointed to a certain degree of Porokhov, Pervushin, Bragin, and Leskov’s involvement in the murder of Petrov. However, that testimony was quite vague and non-specific. Prudon particularly claimed that, while talking to Leskov and Pervushin, he understood that Petrov was murdered by Bragin and someone from Leskov’s circle.

In court, Prudon retracted his earlier pre-trial testimony and said he had made false statements about Bragin, Pervushin, and Porokhov.

Further in the judicial proceedings, Prudon was additionally questioned by the court upon motion by the state prosecuting attorney. Answering the prosecutor’s questions, he confirmed the testimony he had given during the preliminary investigation and, according to the cassation appeal, explained why he retracted that testimony in court.

However, after the verdict was delivered, Prudon filed a statement to the Supreme Court, where he retracted his pre-trial testimony yet again. He pointed out that after his questioning in court, he was summoned to the prosecutor’s office, where they threatened to arrest him if he would not confirm his previous testimony during re-examination.

In view of the above, the argument in the appeal that charges can be based on such witness testimony is clearly unsustainable.

The Judicial Board found that the court correctly assessed the testimony of witness Prudon as well as Knyazev, Bednyakov, and Bragin. Therefore, the related arguments in the cassation appeal should be ignored.

The court of first instance also thoroughly examined the events on Komsomolskaya street. The verdict provides a detailed description of the court’s motivation to reject the evidence to the prosecution’s case. In particular, the court duly evaluated the testimony of witness Prygunov and victims Yezhov, Pyzhov, and Kozhin.

The alibis of Sergeyev and Moiseyev, as well as Bragin’s alibi on the day Petrov was murdered, accepted by the court of first instance, were well-founded.

As for the events associated with the fire, the court found that the cause of fire on Komsomolskaya street was not established by the investigation authorities. That finding of the court was based on convincing arguments, including an analysis carried out by fire cause assessment experts.

Meanwhile, the arguments in the cassation appeal are tenuous. They do not indicate that the judicial investigation was incomplete or that the court made the wrong conclusion.

The court examined in full the testimony by witness Bronevitsky, who recounted the circumstances in which he had demolished Yezhov’s house by shooting a grenade launcher at it.

It cannot be ignored, however, that the case heard by the court was not Bronevitsky’s, so legally, the court could not directly consider the issue of his guilt. However, the court was obliged to evaluate Bronevitsky’s statement and the associated facts to verify the soundness and credibility of the charges presented against Sergeyev, Moiseyev, and others. That was fully accomplished by the court, and all doubts were interpreted in favor of the acquitted persons.

The prosecutorial cassation appeal contains no convincing arguments indicating the inadequacy of the court’s doubts.

The court correctly assessed the testimony of witness Nazarova, first deputy prosecutor of the city of N, because such evidence is obviously inadmissible, and the corresponding arguments in the cassation appeal are clearly baseless.

Thus, the claim in the appeal about the court’s unilateral approach to the evaluation of the evidence does not correspond to the facts of the case and should be ignored.

In view of the above, the Judicial