A fair verdict and the limits of proof in a trial involving a jury

The limits of proof at the judicial stage are limited by the amount of charges brought by the preliminary investigation body or changed by the prosecutor, which is allowed in cases of application of a criminal law that improves (mitigates) the defendant's position compared to the previously incriminated qualification of the act by the investigator or inquirer. When considering criminal cases involving jurors (hereinafter referred to as jurors), the limits of proof also depend on the stage of the trial, and therefore the limits of proof are allocated for the stages with the participation of jurors, limited by the presentation and examination of evidence in the framework of questions, the answers to which fall within the competence of the jury in reaching a verdict, and subsequent stages of issues resolved by a professional judge. The article analyzes the legislative norms and judicial practice that define the quantitative and qualitative limits of proving circumstances that are subject to evaluation by a jury. Within the framework of the study, the authors consider the issues of the fairness of verdicts under the existing limitations of the available data that can be investigated with the participation of a jury, as well as ways to achieve a balance between the limits of evidence, the competence of the jury, the questionnaire and a fair verdict. General scientific and special methods were used in the research, among which it is necessary to single out the dialectical method of cognition, historical, comparative legal, analysis, synthesis and a number of other methods. The authors draw conclusions about the expediency of making changes to the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation in order to ensure a fair verdict by eliminating contradictions between the competence of jurors and the information provided to them within the limits of evidence. The current restrictions on the examination of the defendant's personality by the jury cast doubt on the fairness of the jury's answer to the question of whether the defendant deserves leniency. The jury can answer this question objectively only after the parties have provided them with information about the defendant's personality, the motivation for his criminal behavior, and other circumstances concerning the subjective side of the crime. However, at present, due to a legislative ban, this information is not examined regardless of the age category of the defendants and, accordingly, cannot be assessed by the jury.

the jurors, evaluation of evidence, the verdict, the identity of the defendant, limits of proof, the question sheet, competence of jurors, accusation, minor defendant, justice