Trial by jury

It was a duel. Long, drawn out, exhausting. A duel not only between Vladimir Kvachkov and Anatoly Chubais, but also a professional judge and jury, representatives of the "street court", for the most part agreeing that "the red-haired ...

It was a duel. Long, drawn out, exhausting. A duel not only between Vladimir Kvachkov and Anatoly Chubais, but also a professional judge and jury, representatives of the "street court", who mostly agree that the "red-headed all-Russian allergen" should be hurt by the defendants' acquittal. The only problem was that the system of collected evidence of guilt turned out to be practically flawless. In addition, the main defendant himself, who over the years of the trial has turned into a national hero and a prominent ideologist of the national-patriotic movement, did not hide the fact that the murder of Chubais was not a criminal offense, but an act of "national liberation struggle."

It is unlikely that the judge was worried about ideological nuances: she was trying to achieve legal purity, which is why she asked the jury to disregard the fact that the handsome aging colonel was an honored military man in uniform, and the victim was an oligarch of the Yeltsin era who sold out his homeland, and besides, of Jewish origin. In this sense, the trial of Kvachkov and his unpleasant accomplices was a test, another test, for a jury trial in Russia. More precisely, not for the institute itself, but for its human content. But what country - such are the jury. As the coryphaeus of all sciences said, we have no other writers for you ...

The judge demanded the impossible from the jury - a professional approach and impartiality. For a moment they needed to forget who this victim was and stop feeling personal dislike for him, dictated by external circumstances: a poor country, sold assets, loss of former greatness, foreign cars and bribery all around. Chubais is to blame for everything ... Not only legal - logical inconsistencies did not work here. For example, those that the architect of Russian privatization spoke about in a long-standing interview with his opponent Alexander Prokhanov: “And what a holistic position in court: let me out, but not because I didn’t kill, but because killing Chubais is a duty, honor and duty.” every citizen. So wait, dear, did you still kill or not kill? During interrogation, he says no, he waited until his son went to the bakery for bread. Then I want to ask: so where were you when real Russian patriots, courageously sitting in the bushes and risking their lives, blew up the enemy of the people of Chubais?

The jury justified terrorism as a method of resolving political issues. Kvachkov's acquittal lies in the same realm of wild nationalist prejudice, far removed from questions of guilt or innocence, proof or lack of proof, that allowed, for example, a jury to acquit the murderers of a Tajik girl. Or, on the contrary, to roll up the scientist-"spy" Danilov for 14 years. It is not the jury that is to blame, but the jury is the flesh of the flesh of the God-bearing people, offended by the new government.

That is why in the "headquarters" of Anatoly Chubais, a few months before the verdict, they were sure that the verdict would be acquittal. The political subtext of the case left no doubt that even if Kvachkov and his comrades pleaded guilty, the jury would agree with the position of the main defendant, once stated and repeatedly confirmed: the most sinister organizers of the occupation of Russia as an ordinary criminal offense is unacceptable.”

The issue of belief in evidence of guilt was not a legal one, but a political one. National patriots often win cases in courts. Glory to Russia?