https://static.mk.ru/upload/entities/2020/07/13/18/articles/detailPicture/8c/c3/64/9c/b64c429f1fc03a280552de93820c9299.jpg

you can Blame the journalists covering high-profile trials, the pressure on the jury banned by the Supreme court. The high court concluded that the materials in the press and on television, not a reason to overturn the verdict.

to Understand the very sensitive issue of the relationship between the media and the parties to the proceedings the Supreme court had to because of complaints by the convicted high-profile case of extortion and the murder of a resident of the Altai territory in 2011. The main accused in the case were relatives of the killed Alexey Nicotine. The local press instantly dubbed him the crime boss and gang leader. The jury found the Alexei Nicotine and other defendants guilty of murder with special cruelty and extortion, and the court appointed him to a lifetime of 19 years in a strict regime colony. Subsequently, the media reports the defense tried to imagine the reason for such a severe sentence. According to the lawyers, the jury formed its position under the influence of read in advance before I went to the consultative room for verdict. The Supreme court came to the conclusion that journalism cannot be regarded as a means of pressure on the jury. As stated in the definition of the sun, in one of the publications indicated only on the fact of Nicotine suspicion of murder. However, there was also the comment of his lawyer, and local residents with impartial details about hosted by gang terror. The second publication, which, according to the defense, influenced the decision of the Collegium of the people’s judges, was devoted to the consideration of the case in the Altai regional court. The Supreme court stressed that the possibility to remove from the composition of the panel candidate informed about the progress of the investigation and the circumstances of the case, the lawyers could still at the stage of selection. In addition, judges always explain the need keep a distance from any sources of information at the time of participation in the process. On this basis, the Supreme court has decided that the coverage of the case in the media fair and objective hearing not prevent.