|
As we see, those jurors with whom we've spoken are entirely loyal to the judge. In addition, they were fully capable of distinguishing between the guilt of Pichugin and that of Peshkun. They believed that the prosecution's case against Peshkun was beyond all doubt, especially as he had made a partial confession. As for Aleksey Pichugin, the witnesses' testimony left them unconvinced.
The foreman of the jury, Mikhail, judging from his tone and some of the things he said, was of the same opinion as most of his fellows and did not believe Pichugin was guilty. But he declined to comment. "That trial left a nasty taste in my mouth," he said. "And I don't want to relive it with anyone."
The jurors who asked to be excused for personal or professional reasons reacted warily when approached about the trial. They asked not to be phoned or bothered with questions. There were also signs that one of them even complained to the court about prying journalists.
Those jurors that did answer our questions about the strength of the cases against Pichugin and Peshkun were sincere. Their social status gave no reason to think they might be admirers of the oligarchs. Yet by virtue of their ages and life experiences they were quite able to work out for themselves if the defendant was guilty of murder or attempted murder. In such cases what's needed is not legal expertise but worldly wisdom.
Juries' verdicts in murder cases tend to be considered and balanced. They often acquit murder suspects because unlike the judge they have no professional connections with the police or the prosecution. In their deliberations on a murder case, they study the details and the evidence more thoroughly than is usual. They are reluctant to convict the innocent.
On the basis of these conversations, I assert that the first jury could not be convinced of Pichugin's guilt. And that came as a great disappointment to the prosecution and the Moscow City Court. One can only wonder if an informer had been planted, to keep the interested parties informed of what the jurors were thinking.
Taking into account what we have seen about external surveillance of the jurors and their suspicions of eavesdropping inside the court building, one can only wonder and not state it as fact. If the case support officers at the trial had a reliable source among the jury, they might have been content with that alone. But action was certainly taken to subvert the guaranteed confidentiality, on paper at least, of the jury's deliberations.
Of course, they might also have decided to make doubly sure. Even the most reliable informer could suddenly be troubled by a stirring conscience and defect to the side of justice. In other words, cease reporting back on how the jury regards the prosecution's case. It's a possibility.
So those responsible for ensuring the "correct" outcome realised that the case was coming apart at the seams. Despite the trial being in camera, the judge's bias towards the prosecution and Peshkun's partial repentance, the jurors were leaning towards the defendant. And the defence was yet to come.
Начало | << | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | >>
| 
