Lawyer Alexander Evsyutin, acting on behalf of the Regional Center for Providing BVPD in Kiev No. 026-0011639 dated April 24, 2015, achieved the reversal in the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine for the consideration of civil and criminal cases of a conviction of the highest penalty - life imprisonment.

Lawyer Evsyutin defended a previously convicted client, entering the case at the stage of its cassation consideration. The case was considered based on the cassation appeal of the convicted person against the verdict of the Kakhovsky City District Court of the Kherson Region dated November 13, 2012 and the ruling of the Court of Appeal of the Kherson Region dated August 13, 2013 regarding it. By decisions of these authorities, the client was convicted under Part 2 of Art. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (murder under aggravating circumstances), and he was given the highest penalty - life imprisonment. Thus, by the verdict of the Kakhovsky City District Court of the Kherson region dated November 13, 2012, the man was convicted under paragraph. 2, 4, 13 hours 2 tbsp. 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to punishment in the form of life imprisonment. Based on Art. 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the client was finally sentenced to life imprisonment. By decision of the Court of Appeal of the Kherson region dated August 13, 2013, the sentence was left unchanged. The man was found guilty of taking the life of a young child with extreme cruelty.

In the cassation appeal, the convicted person, referring to significant violations by the courts of first and appellate instances of the requirements of criminal procedural legislation when considering the case, asked to cancel the court decisions and send the case for additional investigation. Justifying the cassation appeal, the convict pointed out that the local court passed an unreasonable verdict without examining all the evidence to confirm his guilt, in particular, did not interrogate all the witnesses. The convict also noted that the court of appeal formally considered the case against him, without conducting a judicial investigation or keeping minutes of the court hearing.

After reviewing the case materials, lawyer Alexander Evsyutin established that the testimony of the convicted person about his innocence in the murder of a young boy was indeed confirmed and not refuted by the circumstances collected in the case. Moreover, there is no direct evidence of guilt in the case that cannot be questioned, and the collected evidence has signs of falsification. Namely, a violation of the defendant’s right to defense was established, since he was deprived of the opportunity to question witnesses A., B. and C., who were not questioned at the trial; the defendant alleged falsification of these circumstances of the case in the records of their interrogations during the pre-trial investigation, and such testimony was announced at the court hearing and presented in the verdict as evidence. It was also confirmed that the conclusion of the forensic immunological examination was biased, since the question of the presence of his (the convicted person’s) traces on the object with which the victim was wounded was not investigated. In the conclusion of the forensic fingerprint examination, there is no information about the person who owns the prints on the inner surface of the walls of the building where the crime was committed, and the discovered prints do not belong to him. On one sneaker and lace, on which traces of blood were found, which could belong to the victim, no traces belonging to him (the client of lawyer Evsyutin) were found. The protocol of seizure of clothes dated June 25, 2011 was falsified, since the seizure itself was carried out on June 24, 2011, and it was not shorts, but trousers that were seized (as evidenced by the data of the protocol of his arrest), and the shorts themselves, which he gave to brother B., to him They were brought later, and it was on them that the examination was carried out. The convict testified about illegal measures during the pre-trial investigation, noting that after he refused to sign the seizure report, law enforcement officers threatened him, so he was forced to partially admit guilt.

During the debate at the court hearing, the lawyer cited the indicated facts of violation of the law and got the panel of judges to accept them when making a decision based on the results of the cassation hearing of the case. The prosecutor considered the court decisions legal and justified and objected to the cassation. However, the panel of the Supreme Court of Justice found that the court of appeal in its ruling did not give the essence of the arguments specified in the additions to the appeal, did not carefully check them, did not give an exhaustive answer to them, but only limited itself to a list of evidence without any assessment of at least one of them, in fact resorting to duplicating the content of the sentence in the definition.

The Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine noted that while leaving the appeal of the convicted person without satisfaction, the appellate court did not provide convincing reasons for making such a decision in determining such a decision, having formally considered the appeal of lawyer Evsyutin’s client. The Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent for a new appeal hearing.

When considering a criminal case again on appeal, the court (Court of Appeal of the Kherson Region) must carefully check the evidence collected in the case, give it and the conclusions of the first instance a proper assessment. Adopt, if necessary, a decision to conduct a judicial investigation, check all the arguments of the appeal with additions and the cassation lawyer Evsyutin’s client’s complaint, and taking into account all the circumstances of the case, make an appropriate decision, setting it out in the appropriate procedural document in compliance with all the requirements of the criminal procedural law.

https://legalaid.gov.ua/novyny/shans-ne-buty-zasudzhenym-dovichno-sprava-advokata-iz-kyyeva/