Prosecutor’s Supervision of Public Charge in Court: Procedural Tactics in Nonstandard Conditions

Abstract

Article focuses on important aspect of public charge support – appropriate prosecutor’s preparation to participation in the procedure which involves planning (mental processes aimed at analysis of the criminal proceeding and individual action plan elaboration with relevant methodology). Prosecutor’s preparation for supervision of public charge in court comprises analysis of data collected in the course of criminal proceeding; identification and listing of issues subjected to factual hearing; planning of courtroom activities related to collection and verification of evidence supporting the public charge; elaboration of supervision tactics. Of the utmost importance for the prosecutor preparing for the hearing is the conceptual foresight of potential challenges emerging during the trial. It enables him/her to take active part in the hearing by controlling the truth establishment. Public prosecutor’s tasks become more challenging when the process is constantly affected by the uprising circumstances – usually caused by: «gaps» in pre-trial investigation, evidential contradictions, modified or updated statements given by interviewed subjects, notifications of unjustified evidence collection methods, public charge withdrawal or replacement, provision of applications on security measures approval/alteration/cancellation obstructing the public charge etc. In practice on of the most efficient ways to illegally obstruct the criminal proceeding is undue influence of concerned parties. This issue has become one of the overriding problems after the momentum was cumulated by the organized crime due to its efficient networking, powerful resource base and commitment to «shadowy» tactics preventing exposure and punishment. Prosecutor’s decision-making procedures (concerning security measures in the course of pre-trial investigation) are presented in the legislative acts and supported by relevant state practice. Direct application of the abovementioned measures in the court, however, is not specified in the same way – in our opinion, if any grounds arise for such measures to be taken, public prosecutor is immediately tasked to apply to the court. The key task of public prosecutor in evidence examination process is to be initiative and determined enough to secure the participants of the process requiring extra protection and eliminate any possible violations towards them. But this task requires to strike a balance with regard to other participants of the process subjected to security measures and avoid any potential infringement of their rights. Taking into account the peculiarities of interrogation during the trial prosecutor is obliged to provide consistent list of questions, appropriate dialogue format; demonstrate impartiality, patience, tact, respect to participants’ rights, objective interest and emotional response towards interrogatees, ensure prevention of any uncomfortable/humiliating situations along with due establishment of all probative facts. It means that prosecutor must stimulate the interrogate to provide the court with true statements. Court hearing is deemed to be a core of criminal justice but some prosecutors do not consider this fact as important and accentuate their speeches to be the «centre of gravity» in any debate primarily aimed to support the public charge. Today public prosecutor is an active participant of criminal process capable to provide correct and lawful response to different challenges.