Nasonov S.A. Disagreement with the guilty jury verdict: comparative law and theoretical methods.

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.

Keywords: