Abstract: The article is devoted to the specificity of proceeding in jury according to the Austrian CCP, adopted in 1975 (with amendments of 2016) as a kind of a European model of this procedure. These features are considered from a comparative legal aspect and compared with the same procedure, contained in the Russian CCP.Proceeding in jury trial in Austria is an example of a continental type of this form of hearing of a case, and this is a factor conditioning the significant differences between this procedure and the same one established by the Russian CCP. The presiding judge possesses a wide discretion in the field of proving. The features of the judicial enquiry in jury in Austria are the following: examination of evidences begins with the questioning of the accused; the procedures of examination of evidences of the defense and the prosecution are equal; a wide examination of information about a personality of an accused before the jury. The article notes the specificity of a stage of putting questions before the jury (there exist four types of questions), the specificity of the summing-up of the judge (he gives it in the jury-room and doesn’t speak on a factual side of a case), the specificity of the jury's deliberation when they have to give a short explanation of their answers, and the opportunity of a panel of professional judges to attend the jury's deliberation. The article suggests the possibility of reception of certain elements of the Austrian model of proceeding in jury trial by the Russian legislation.

Abstract: The article is devoted to possibilities of the disagreement of the professional judge (or a chamber) with a guilty verdict of the jury and procedural mechanisms of realization of such disagreement.The article discusses three procedural models of realization of disagreement of the professional judge with a guilty verdict of the jury: the abolishment of the verdict by a chief judge (or a chamber); the adherence of a chamber of professional judges to the minority of jurors; the annulment of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.The first model is characterized by the ability of a chief judge to cancel the jury's verdict and give a sentence contrary to it (the Anglo-American procedure in the jury trial) or discharge the jury and begin the process again (continental process).The second model is enshrined in Belgian legislation and alleges the possibility of summing up votes of professional judges with the minority of jurors (who voted for acquit) and give an acquittal verdict by a simple majority of votes. The author believes that this procedure is a guarantee following from the presumption of innocence.The third model of a disagreement with a guilty verdict of the jury arises from specifics of an appeal in countries with Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceeding, allowing the abolition of a guilty verdict on certain foundations. The author examines the legislative regulation of the possibility of disagreement of the presiding judge with a guilty verdict according to the CPC of the Russian Federation and certain problems arising in the judicial practice.

Abstract: The article is devoted to possibilities of the disagreement of the professional judge (or a chamber) with a guilty verdict of the jury and procedural mechanisms of realization of such disagreement.The article discusses three procedural models of realization of disagreement of the professional judge with a guilty verdict of the jury: the abolishment of the verdict by a chief judge (or a chamber); the adherence of a chamber of professional judges to the minority of jurors; the annulment of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.The first model is characterized by the ability of a chief judge to cancel the jury's verdict and give a sentence contrary to it (the Anglo-American procedure in the jury trial) or discharge the jury and begin the process again (continental process).The second model is enshrined in Belgian legislation and alleges the possibility of summing up votes of professional judges with the minority of jurors (who voted for acquit) and give an acquittal verdict by a simple majority of votes. The author believes that this procedure is a guarantee following from the presumption of innocence.The third model of a disagreement with a guilty verdict of the jury arises from specifics of an appeal in countries with Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceeding, allowing the abolition of a guilty verdict on certain foundations. The author examines the legislative regulation of the possibility of disagreement of the presiding judge with a guilty verdict according to the CPC of the Russian Federation and certain problems arising in the judicial practice.

Abstract: This article examines the issue of procedural guarantees of defendant’s right to not testify against themselves. The article reveals the constitutional and international legal basis for this right, and analyzes the key positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The authors note that the aforementioned right covers all statements made by the defendant regardless of their incriminating nature. A special attention is given to the analysis of the legal precedent, where the evidence acquired in violation of this right (protocols of verification of statements on the scene, confrontational questioning) are still deemed admissible. The work determines the prerequisites for such approach and underlines its contradictions with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Particularly during the trial by jury, it is important to explain the full and precise meaning to the jurors of the right of the defendant to not testify against themselves.

Abstract: This article examines the genesis and evolution of the continental model of jury trial proceedings. The first historical form of continental model of jury trial emerged at the end of the XVIII century in France, after which it spread throughout virtually all of Europe in the XIX century. The work reveals the particularities of the continental model emerging throughout the stages of court trials and arguments; in the system of questions faced by the jury; jury verdicts. The author notes that the subject of court trial and arguments in the continental model were extremely broad; information about the identity of the defendant was examined with participation of the jury. The continental model of jury trial had an unbalanced defense and prosecution bases: the prosecutor possessed significantly greater rights that the defense, while the court had discretional authority in the area of evidence. At the same time, the jurors had a broad arsenal of rights in the criminal procedure and were allowed to take the evidence into the deliberation room. The author makes a conclusion that the research of the historical experience of the continental model of the court proceedings involving jury is important for the search of ways to improve this form of procedure in modern Russia.

Abstract: This article examines the issue of procedural guarantees of defendant’s right to not testify against themselves. The article reveals the constitutional and international legal basis for this right, and analyzes the key positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The authors note that the aforementioned right covers all statements made by the defendant regardless of their incriminating nature. A special attention is given to the analysis of the legal precedent, where the evidence acquired in violation of this right (protocols of verification of statements on the scene, confrontational questioning) are still deemed admissible. The work determines the prerequisites for such approach and underlines its contradictions with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Particularly during the trial by jury, it is important to explain the full and precise meaning to the jurors of the right of the defendant to not testify against themselves.

Abstract: This article examines the genesis and evolution of the continental model of jury trial proceedings. The first historical form of continental model of jury trial emerged at the end of the XVIII century in France, after which it spread throughout virtually all of Europe in the XIX century. The work reveals the particularities of the continental model emerging throughout the stages of court trials and arguments; in the system of questions faced by the jury; jury verdicts. The author notes that the subject of court trial and arguments in the continental model were extremely broad; information about the identity of the defendant was examined with participation of the jury. The continental model of jury trial had an unbalanced defense and prosecution bases: the prosecutor possessed significantly greater rights that the defense, while the court had discretional authority in the area of evidence. At the same time, the jurors had a broad arsenal of rights in the criminal procedure and were allowed to take the evidence into the deliberation room. The author makes a conclusion that the research of the historical experience of the continental model of the court proceedings involving jury is important for the search of ways to improve this form of procedure in modern Russia.