From pre-trial detention center - to house arrest

In this case (it was instituted under subsection “c” of part 3 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation , after conducting a merchandising examination - they reclassified the amount of damage to part 4 of article 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation , the subject of theft is a car), I entered as the defender of the accused, after all the initial investigative actions (interrogation as a suspect and the accused, verification of the evidence on the spot) were completed, the charge was brought, the preventive measure was chosen by the court in the form of detention, with the participation of the lawyer appointed by the investigator.

Therefore, when I arrived at the investigator, presented a defense order by agreement, I was informed that no investigative actions were foreseen in the near future, only the extension of the detention would take place in about a week (apparently in the turmoil after the detention, they did not extend the duration of the preliminary investigation In this connection, the court did not choose a preventive measure for two months, but before the end of the investigation, which just expired a week later with a little). The opportunity to familiarize myself with the materials of the case, to which I had the right, was kindly given to me. To my question, why was it in such a hurry - the suspect was interrogated in one day, “street”, a charge was brought, the accused was interrogated, a preventive measure was chosen by the court, the investigator, smiling, explained that she suspected

 Having managed to get to the client on the same day in pre-trial detention center-4 in Moscow, having discussed the position, they decided not to file an appeal with the Moscow City Court, but to fight for changing the preventive measure during the next extension of the term, which left only a few days. A sober look at the situation, I realized that there are chances, albeit very small. It was decided not to raise the question of asking for a preventive measure (with further election of a recognizance not to leave the house), but asking to change it to house arrest, or to any other than detention. I must say right away that my question to the principal, for the sake of which, he went to cooperate with the investigation, gave multiple-page testimonies, participated in checking the testimonies on the spot, but at the same time he ended up in the pre-trial detention center and remained unanswered.

Our strengths were the lack of a criminal record, a permanent residence, place of work, a minor child, and guilty plea. From the confession, they decided not to refuse, at least for now.

Weaknesses include the lack of residence and registration in Moscow, the gravity of the alleged crime, and the fact that the investigation was at the initial stage, when, even by the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces, the severity can be taken into account when deciding on detention.

There were several days left until the next court hearing. During this time, information was collected on the health status of the client, and other information about his personality. An agreement was also signed to rent an apartment in which my principal could reside in the event of a change in the preventive measure. The landlady did not mind, “serving” a house arrest in her apartment, as long as the payment was made on time and the order was respected.

With a stack of documents, I arrived on the appointed day in court. After it became known that the extension of the term of detention would be considered by the same judge who had chosen a preventive measure a few days ago, my mood, to put it mildly, worsened. The chances of changing the measure, which were already, to put it mildly, small, steadily tended to zero.

The court session was held in the usual manner - the investigator supported her application, the prosecutor called it lawful and reasonable (however, I did not expect another). The judge, who probably had not yet managed to forget my trustee, to whom he had chosen the measure of restraint, was probably preparing to hear, already familiar to him, the arguments of the defense attorney that there were no grounds for extending the measure of restraint, to hide and continue to engage in criminal activity I do not intend to influence the participants in the proceedings and is not going to ask the accused to release him to his wife and child.

But, those few days that were in my reserve, before the meeting, were not in vain. In addition to oral arguments, the court was provided with documents confirming each defense argument. These were characteristics from the place of work and place of residence, and the contract of employment, health certificates of both the accused and his close (and not very close) relatives (with the application of documents confirming the degree of relationship). The number of documents turned out to be such that the court announced a break for the party of the prosecution to study them (in the text of the court ruling, these documents were not reflected, but I believe that they also influenced the decision). After the break, the meeting continued, the application for the attachment of the submitted documents was granted, however, the position of the investigator and the prosecutor (who received similar packages of documents) did not change.

Our conversations with the principal were not long, because I did not want, on duty, to blur the impression of the submitted documents. The court left to make a decision, according to the mood of a bored prosecutor, I suggested that the decision would not be in our favor, and since the principal was left in the hall and not taken to the convoy, I discussed with him the question of appealing the court’s decision (setting that the period of detention will be extended).

The announcement of the decision caused very conflicting emotions in the courtroom. My principal joyfully tried to convey to the investigator and prosecutor that he would not hide anywhere and would appear on the first call; the investigator apparently was not up to him - she called the management, who was saying something loudly into her phone; the court clerk found out from the convoy which department of the UII sent her a decision; the guards, unlocking the “cage” and releasing my client, quietly rejoiced that they should be taken “on hand” that day, one person less in jail, which means they will be a little earlier at home ...

I only then realized how tired I have been during these days spent in searching, copying, certifying and sending documents, finding an apartment, negotiating with their owners and relatives of the client.

The court’s decision was not appealed by the prosecutor. In the future, my client strictly complied with the conditions of the house arrest, which he was at until the sentencing. The investigation, despite the re-qualification of the charge under Part 4 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code (according to the amount of damage), did not apply for a change in the preventive measure, and the entire term served at home was set off in the verdict.