I have been reading criminal court verdicts for 20 years. No, I'm not a masochist who enjoys dubious reading, I'm a lawyer. It’s just that kind of work. I can reproduce the court’s guilty verdict even before the court hearing. Why? Because they are all stereotyped and easily predictable. Moreover, regardless of whether the defendant’s guilt has been proven or not. All evidence of a person’s innocence is handled easily and naturally with the help of memorized stereotyped phrases. For example: “Despite the defendant’s non-admission of his guilt, his guilt in committing the indicated above crimes is confirmed by the totality of sufficient evidence examined by the court, obtained in the manner established by the criminal procedural law and not refuted by the defense.” Next comes the correspondence of the indictment drawn up by the investigator, as well as the witnesses interrogated at the court hearing. In court, the witness could say that he was walking, walking, the sky was blue, he heard something somewhere, I can’t say anything else. Rest assured, this witness, his testimony, will be presented in the verdict as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Such testimony is given especially often when there is no evidence of guilt. This is how the appearance of an evidence base is gained. It usually consists of: Testimony of the victim. Who can simply say that someone stole things from him. Statements from the victim, which state the same thing. Then there are several prosecution witnesses who report, for example, that the victim told them about the theft. There is also testimony from police officers, whom the court also interrogates as witnesses. The police will definitely tell you that no one beat the defendant, no illegal methods of influence were used. On the contrary, over a cup of tea, the defendant himself told how he committed the crime, and his bodily injuries were caused during detention, from resisting the operatives. Further, the court will definitely write: “In addition, the guilt of the defendant in committing the crimes specified in the descriptive part of this verdict is confirmed by the investigated at the court hearing with material evidence and written materials of the case containing evidence and information that allowed the court to recognize them as admissible.” This means that the court leafed through the criminal case, thereby examining the written evidence. He looked at the victim’s cut up bag. That's all. We also need to talk about the issue of recognizing evidence as admissible. For example, the investigator did not sign the interrogation protocol or set a number. Do you think the court will recognize such a protocol as unacceptable evidence? You are mistaken. That investigator will be summoned to court and interrogated as a witness. They will ask whether there was an investigative action, whether the defendant gave such testimony, whether everything was legal, etc. “Of course, everything was legal,” the investigator will say. - “Why didn’t you sign?” “I forgot,” the investigator will answer, and forgot to put the number. Well, since everything is legal, why pay attention to such trifles. The court will recognize the record as admissible evidence and will refer to it in the verdict as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. In general, there were “interesting” cases. The defendant did not give any testimony; there was no evidence in the case at all. The judge called the investigator to the court hearing as a witness. The investigator said that the defendant refused to testify, but in an oral conversation he said that ... and then the investigator’s complete fantasy, which corresponds to the plot of the accusation. The court recognized the testimony of this witness as evidence of the defendant’s guilt and referred to them in the sentence. All authorities, right up to the Supreme Court, recognized this as acceptable. That is, according to the logic of the court, no more protocols are needed. It’s enough to call an investigator, an operative worker, so that they can retell what the detainee told them orally. And it doesn’t matter what state the person who was detained was in then - drunk, beaten, with an iron on his belly, a soldering iron in... his hand. The main thing is that the police heard everything and.