Translated material
Fighting in defense
Lawyers quarreled at new trial in Koptsev's case
The scandal began yesterday with the re-examination in the Moscow City Court of the criminal case of Alexander Koptsev, who carried out a massacre in the synagogue on Bolshaya Bronnaya on January 11 of this year. In court, to everyone's surprise, he behaved quietly - he did not utter anti-Semitic slogans and pretentious speeches, as he had done at the first trial. But this time the lawyers distinguished themselves. The sleepy course of the trial was disrupted by the victims' lawyer Vitaly Khavkin. He abruptly cut off the speech of Koptsev’s defenders, called them “unprofessionals,” and called their speech “a manifestation of hidden anti-Semitism.”At the end of March this year, the Moscow City Court sentenced Alexander Koptsev to 13 years in prison in a maximum security colony for the synagogue massacre. He was found guilty of attempted murder motivated by national, racial or religious hatred. At the same time, the judge excluded from the sentence the charge against Koptseva by the prosecutor’s office under Art. 282 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity on racial or national grounds). Then the court considered that there was no hostility in Koptsev’s actions, since this is “a phenomenon that speaks of hostile relations existing in society between certain groups of people.” Koptsev, according to the investigation, acted solely for personal reasons and motivated by hatred. This motivation served as a reason for the victims and the prosecutor's office to appeal the verdict. Lawyers for the victims of the massacre and representatives of the synagogue said that the court incorrectly interpreted the concepts of “enmity” and “hatred.” And in June, the Supreme Court agreed with the victims' arguments and returned the case for a new trial.
As before, about a dozen grandparents who sympathized with Koptsev came to yesterday’s meeting, as before. In the corridor they whispered to each other, and when the bailiffs did not let them into the hall, remembering the defiant behavior of the elderly people who shouted to the judge their opinion about the “national question”, they began to be loudly indignant. The process began with a petition from the anti-Semitic's new lawyer, Roza Saribzhanova, who asked the court to declare illegal and cancel the decision of the prosecutor's office to recognize the synagogue as a victim and undermine its business reputation. “According to the current law, damaged business reputation must be proven. Explain what this means. Damage to business reputation is a negative opinion about the organization. In this case, the victims did not provide any evidence of this, and after the incident, people, on the contrary, began to sympathize with the synagogue and its parishioners,” said Ms. Saribzhanova, but the court rejected her request.
After a representative of the prosecutor's office read out the indictment, Judge Andrei Zubarev asked Koptsev if he would admit his guilt under the articles “attempted murder of two or more persons motivated by national, racial, religious hatred” and “inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of humanity.” dignity."
“I admit partially,” answered the defendant, “only to the extent that I committed the attempt.” Alexander Koptsev’s answer shocked the victims and their lawyers, who remembered how during the first trial the anti-Semite actively spoke out on the “Jewish question.” Having finished with Koptsev, the court began interrogating the three victims who appeared. According to witness Roman Belinsky, who became the first victim of the anti-Semite, “the defendant beat professionally, which may indicate his special training in fascist organizations.” “The result of this incident was increased ethnic discord in society. Remember the murder of an Armenian in the subway, and just recently in Israel a man with a knife also ran into a synagogue,” Belinsky said.
Then the court moved on to questioning the synagogue's rabbi, Yitzhak Kogan, and then a scandal suddenly broke out. For some reason, Ms. Saribzhanova decided to ask the victim about the number of synagogues that existed during Soviet times, and how many there are now. Because of this “innocent” question, a quarrel broke out between the lawyers. “Just don’t ask such questions,” lawyer Vitaly Khavkin shouted angrily, jumping up from his seat. - This is cynicism bordering on anti-Semitism. What are you trying to achieve here? Do you want to hear how well the Jews live and what else they demand? You are unprofessional! Not only do you not know the law on the legal profession, but you also apparently have not heard about lawyer ethics. We will discuss this case with you at the disciplinary commission. I guarantee you."
Stunned, lawyer Saribzhanova tried to find protection from the judge: “Why am I being limited in my right to defend my client? Why is he yelling and pressuring me?” But then Mr. Khavkin resumed the attack: “I will continue to press! And you can write this down in the minutes of the meeting. Koptsev’s defender behaves simply unprofessionally. “I regard her statement that the defendant’s act generated sympathy for the victims in society as indirectly inciting national and religious hatred,” he concluded his speech.
Judging by how violently the process began, similar scandals should be expected at subsequent meetings. 21-year-old defendant Alexander Koptsev expressed a desire to speak at the very end, since he still “needs to prepare a speech.” And today the questioning of witnesses and victims will continue in the Moscow City Court.