Translated material
Nobody saw anything
April 2. So, today the next meeting took place regarding our common client with Tatyana Glushkova. The situation is similar to what Tatyana recently described - the administrative offense report contains an address that does not exist, and at which our client, according to the prosecution, committed the offense - Bolshoi Tatarsky Lane, 10. But even this, as it turned out, not the most interesting thing. Yes Yes …
Briefly about case facts.
The accusation is actually based on two documents - a report and a protocol on an administrative offense.
The report was written by a policeman who did NOT detain our client and did NOT see him being detained, since he first saw him in the paddy wagon. But at the same time, apparently, just in case, he indicated in the report that our client “by his actions allowed a public event to violate the established procedure for holding a rally” (if you don’t understand anything, know that this is normal...).
The protocol was drawn up by a policeman who COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING AT ALL, because at the time of the arrest he was bored at the police station in the South-West of Moscow, waiting for several paddy wagons with detainees to be brought to him.
Let's summarize. NO ONE SAW ANYTHING.
Therefore, they decided to take the case to court.
(Until April 2, there were several court hearings that were postponed for various reasons. The last time before the interrogation of the policeman, the meeting was postponed due to the fact that my colleague Tatyana Glushkova filed a petition to include in the case materials a notice from the cadastre that the addresses appearing in protocol does not exist.)
Today I had the honor of interrogating a police officer born in 1992, who confidently began with the fact that the arrest was carried out at the Zamoskvoretsky court, and our client chanted “Freedom for the prisoners of Bolotnaya!” When I asked why he wrote in the report that the arrest took place on Tverskaya Street, he thought for a moment, smiled and asked to look at the report. After studying the document, he said: “Yes, everything is correct. So, on Tverskaya.” It turned out that on February 24 the person managed to attend both events and “did not remember exactly” where and what exactly happened. For the same reason, he testified that the approximate number of participants in the action was “about 200,” while the protocol indicated “about 1000,” and to a clarifying question regarding the slogans he replied that “ some of the people were chanting slogans,” and whether our client was among them or not, he doesn’t know.
As a result, having received comprehensive information about the arrest from a policeman who saw nothing and did not take part in the arrest himself, Judge Cheprasova decided to postpone the hearing in order to call another important witness - a police officer from the police department who drew up the report on the administrative offense and who I didn't see anything either. The judge explained her decision by saying that she wanted to find out “who drew up such a wonderful protocol.” “It turns out,” she reasonably noted, “that the question is generally raised about whether the defendant was at the scene of the offense.” I wanted to add “at an address that doesn’t exist,” but I resisted.
Now we will see Judge Cheprasova on Friday at 9:00 in order to question another witness who did not see anything.
(Friday's hearing was adjourned to Monday because the witness failed to appear.)
April 7. Proceedings in a case of an administrative offense under Part 5 of Art. 20.2. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has been terminated!
So, today Tatyana Glushkova and I still managed to interrogate in court another, this time the last, witness who did not see anything.
Today, the district commissioner acted as a witness - a cheerful middle-aged man, suspiciously unlike his colleagues on the invisible front. If I were in their place, I would definitely suspect him of “unreliability.” “Unreliability” showed itself almost immediately - as soon as the district commissioner asked the question of whether someone from the prosecution would participate in the process. I was surprised at the unexpected adequacy of the question, perhaps even more than the district police officer at the negative answer.
The interrogation went predictably - the witness, who did not see anything, explained to the court that he did not see anything, that the protocol was drawn up on the basis of the report of a police officer, who also did not see anything, and regarding the discrepancy in addresses, he suggested that it was allowed due to “ a technical error." In response to my colleague’s question about where in the protocol there came a mention of the number of participants in the action, the slogans that our client allegedly chanted, as well as his actions during the arrest, if in the report on the basis of which the protocol was drawn up, this data is not present in principle, the district police officer the commissioner expressed a seditious assumption that perhaps not all the documents were in the case and that some of the documents were simply lost.
Judge Cheprasova was already listening to the defense's explanations without much enthusiasm - all possible witnesses who had not seen anything were interrogated, the circumstances set out in the case materials not only contradicted each other, but also did not coincide with the circumstances contained in the testimony of defense witnesses , which everyone saw, the address of the place where the offense was committed was actually missing. In a word, Judge Cheprasova did everything she could to support the prosecution, and her conscience was clear - she could safely issue a decision to terminate the proceedings.
Thus, this is already the 7th termination of administrative proceedings in a series of cases involving arrests on February 21 and 24, 2014.
PS Oh yes, the proceedings in the case were discontinued due to failure to establish the place where the administrative offense was committed.
Original :
lawyer Comment from YURICS Tatyana Glushkova :
The hearing on the case of Andrei Yashin was marked by three surprising events.
Firstly , for the first time in my practice, the local police commissioner who drew up a protocol on an administrative offense was summoned to court. Alas, not as a representative of the prosecution, but only as a witness.
Secondly - again for the first time in my practice - the words “ will represent the prosecution ” in the administrative process were not heard from the defense lawyer (but from the same district commissioner, who was interested in whether there would be a representative in the process). Having received an explanation that if anyone could be a representative of the prosecution in this process, it could only be him, the district police officer retreated with the phrase: “ What am I... I’m not a prosecutor, but only a designer... ”
Thirdly , Judge Cheprasova announced the operative part of the decision!
In general, the trial was revolutionary.