Abstract: Criminal proceedings before a jury are the most important constitutional guarantee of citizens' direct participation in the administration of justice. Scientists discover the roots of the jury trial in the 4th century BC in Athens. Subsequently, the jury trial manifested itself in a more developed form in England in 829 A.D. and subsequently spread in one form or another to a number of European countries, including Russia, as well as the United States. The Soviet period of the development of the Russian state was not associated with the development of this institution. However, in the Russian Federation, the jury trial was reborn and returned to domestic criminal proceedings. When writing the article, the author applied a dialectical approach to the study of the phenomenon in its development and constant movement. Thus, the development of the domestic jury trial was traced, taking into account the prerequisites arising from the world experience of its development. The historical method, the method of system analysis and the statistical method were also applied. The main conclusions of the study are the establishment of a link between the emergence of other democratic principles in state building and the emergence of the jury trial. According to the idea of the reformers of the Russian criminal justice system, the jury trial at the apogee of its development should maximize the participation of the popular element in the administration of justice before the crown court, and even more so in a modern democratic society. The functioning of the jury trial is fraught with a number of problems, the main of which is the qualitative potential of the jury and the ability of the public prosecutor to present evidence in their interrelation, on which the fairness of the verdict directly depends. A special contribution of the author to the research of the topic is the introduction into the scientific discourse of rare historical sources that had not previously been found in publications on this topic. The novelty of the research lies in studying the experience of the domestic jury trial from the perspective of the functioning of the prosecutor – public prosecutor in it, analyzing the methodological recommendations of practicing lawyers of the 19th and early 20th centuries in relation to the current stage of development of this institution.

Abstract: The subject of the study is the novelties introduced by the legislator into the criminal procedure legislation in 2016 on the possibility of termination of criminal prosecution against persons who have committed crimes of small and medium gravity for the first time, with the simultaneous application of another criminal law measure against them, a judicial fine. The object of the study is the emerging law enforcement practice arising in connection with the application of the norms on the judicial fine. The article pays special attention to the practical applicability of the rules on the judicial fine in relation to persons who have committed crimes of small and medium gravity for the first time, with the so-called formal (non-investigative) composition, as well as those who have committed attempted crimes. Various aspects of practical compensation by such defendants (suspects, defendants) for the harm caused by the crime are considered. The main result of the conducted research is the author's conclusion that a real proportionate compensation for any harm caused by a crime, as required by law, should be an indispensable condition for the application of the rules on a judicial fine, regardless of what kind of crime is in question: with a formal composition or material.
The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the author analyzed statistical data on the application of novels about a court fine for the last 3 years, the existing trends in the application of a criminal law measure, a court fine against persons accused (suspects, defendants) of committing crimes with the so-called formal composition, as well as attempted crimes.

Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: The subject of the study is the functional content of prosecutor's activities on pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings, in which of particular importance are procedural oversight and criminal prosecution. The author studies the regulatory framework of the Criminal-Procedural Code of the Russian Federation serving as the means of these functions implementation. The article shows their interrelations and the relations with the main criminal - procedural functions. The author analyzes the range of views on the definition of a prosecutor's criminal - procedural function by other scientists, and offers his own point of view. The main research method is the dialectical method of cognition. The author also uses the comparative legal, the logical-legal and the system methods of cognition. The novelty lies in the comparison of modern scientific attitudes towards the functional range of prosecutor's activities. The author concludes that the function of criminal procedural oversight in criminal proceedings is an imported from the outside state-legal function of oversight and at the same time - the main criminal-procedural function. Special contribution to the study consists in the author's proposals to amend the existing legislation.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.