Abstract: The article is devoted to the historical typologization of criminal proceedings in jury trials. The author notes that the essence of the jury trial requires its realization in the legislative regulation and judicial practice of the concrete historical models of trial by jury. However, each specific model of proceeding in a jury trial is formed and functions in the context of the evolution of a certain legal system, as a result of which it inevitably comes under the influence of a group of factors that affects the specificity of realization of these features. The identical nature of a number of such factors leads to the emergence of models of proceedings in the jury trial which are similar in the specificity of their legal constructions.The article critically examines the approaches to the historical typologization of proceedings in jury trials in pre-revolutionary and modern procedural literature. In the author's opinion, the complex basis of the typology of historical forms of proceedings in the jury trial is determined by a certain type of criminal process, its historical form, and also the ideology (direction) of the transformation of the theoretical (ideal) model of such proceeding.The totality of the concrete historical features of proceeding in the jury trial constitutes a typical historical (morphological) model of such proceeding, and its implementation in the legislation of the particular state (in the particular historical period) is a particular historical form (the legislative form) of proceeding in the jury trial.The author notes that there exist three typical historical (morphological) models of proceedings in jury trial: Anglo-American, Continental and Combined (mixed).The author concludes that the study of historical models of proceedings in jury trial is significant for finding the ways to improve this form of legal proceedings in modern Russia.

Abstract: The article is devoted to possibilities of the disagreement of the professional judge (or a chamber) with a guilty verdict of the jury and procedural mechanisms of realization of such disagreement.The article discusses three procedural models of realization of disagreement of the professional judge with a guilty verdict of the jury: the abolishment of the verdict by a chief judge (or a chamber); the adherence of a chamber of professional judges to the minority of jurors; the annulment of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.The first model is characterized by the ability of a chief judge to cancel the jury's verdict and give a sentence contrary to it (the Anglo-American procedure in the jury trial) or discharge the jury and begin the process again (continental process).The second model is enshrined in Belgian legislation and alleges the possibility of summing up votes of professional judges with the minority of jurors (who voted for acquit) and give an acquittal verdict by a simple majority of votes. The author believes that this procedure is a guarantee following from the presumption of innocence.The third model of a disagreement with a guilty verdict of the jury arises from specifics of an appeal in countries with Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceeding, allowing the abolition of a guilty verdict on certain foundations. The author examines the legislative regulation of the possibility of disagreement of the presiding judge with a guilty verdict according to the CPC of the Russian Federation and certain problems arising in the judicial practice.

Abstract: The article is devoted to possibilities of the disagreement of the professional judge (or a chamber) with a guilty verdict of the jury and procedural mechanisms of realization of such disagreement.The article discusses three procedural models of realization of disagreement of the professional judge with a guilty verdict of the jury: the abolishment of the verdict by a chief judge (or a chamber); the adherence of a chamber of professional judges to the minority of jurors; the annulment of the verdict in the Court of Appeal.The first model is characterized by the ability of a chief judge to cancel the jury's verdict and give a sentence contrary to it (the Anglo-American procedure in the jury trial) or discharge the jury and begin the process again (continental process).The second model is enshrined in Belgian legislation and alleges the possibility of summing up votes of professional judges with the minority of jurors (who voted for acquit) and give an acquittal verdict by a simple majority of votes. The author believes that this procedure is a guarantee following from the presumption of innocence.The third model of a disagreement with a guilty verdict of the jury arises from specifics of an appeal in countries with Anglo-Saxon type of criminal proceeding, allowing the abolition of a guilty verdict on certain foundations. The author examines the legislative regulation of the possibility of disagreement of the presiding judge with a guilty verdict according to the CPC of the Russian Federation and certain problems arising in the judicial practice.

Abstract: This article examines the issue of procedural guarantees of defendant’s right to not testify against themselves. The article reveals the constitutional and international legal basis for this right, and analyzes the key positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The authors note that the aforementioned right covers all statements made by the defendant regardless of their incriminating nature. A special attention is given to the analysis of the legal precedent, where the evidence acquired in violation of this right (protocols of verification of statements on the scene, confrontational questioning) are still deemed admissible. The work determines the prerequisites for such approach and underlines its contradictions with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Particularly during the trial by jury, it is important to explain the full and precise meaning to the jurors of the right of the defendant to not testify against themselves.

Abstract: This article examines the genesis and evolution of the continental model of jury trial proceedings. The first historical form of continental model of jury trial emerged at the end of the XVIII century in France, after which it spread throughout virtually all of Europe in the XIX century. The work reveals the particularities of the continental model emerging throughout the stages of court trials and arguments; in the system of questions faced by the jury; jury verdicts. The author notes that the subject of court trial and arguments in the continental model were extremely broad; information about the identity of the defendant was examined with participation of the jury. The continental model of jury trial had an unbalanced defense and prosecution bases: the prosecutor possessed significantly greater rights that the defense, while the court had discretional authority in the area of evidence. At the same time, the jurors had a broad arsenal of rights in the criminal procedure and were allowed to take the evidence into the deliberation room. The author makes a conclusion that the research of the historical experience of the continental model of the court proceedings involving jury is important for the search of ways to improve this form of procedure in modern Russia.

Abstract: This article examines the issue of procedural guarantees of defendant’s right to not testify against themselves. The article reveals the constitutional and international legal basis for this right, and analyzes the key positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The authors note that the aforementioned right covers all statements made by the defendant regardless of their incriminating nature. A special attention is given to the analysis of the legal precedent, where the evidence acquired in violation of this right (protocols of verification of statements on the scene, confrontational questioning) are still deemed admissible. The work determines the prerequisites for such approach and underlines its contradictions with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Particularly during the trial by jury, it is important to explain the full and precise meaning to the jurors of the right of the defendant to not testify against themselves.

Abstract: This article examines the genesis and evolution of the continental model of jury trial proceedings. The first historical form of continental model of jury trial emerged at the end of the XVIII century in France, after which it spread throughout virtually all of Europe in the XIX century. The work reveals the particularities of the continental model emerging throughout the stages of court trials and arguments; in the system of questions faced by the jury; jury verdicts. The author notes that the subject of court trial and arguments in the continental model were extremely broad; information about the identity of the defendant was examined with participation of the jury. The continental model of jury trial had an unbalanced defense and prosecution bases: the prosecutor possessed significantly greater rights that the defense, while the court had discretional authority in the area of evidence. At the same time, the jurors had a broad arsenal of rights in the criminal procedure and were allowed to take the evidence into the deliberation room. The author makes a conclusion that the research of the historical experience of the continental model of the court proceedings involving jury is important for the search of ways to improve this form of procedure in modern Russia.