Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T13:30:18.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Jury as Part of the Russian Judicial Reform of 1864

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Samuel Kucherov
Samuel Kucherov*
Affiliation:
The Bar in Kiev, Russia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Count M. M. Speranskij, undoubtedly one of the most brilliant statesmen tsarist Russia has ever produced, wrote in the Introduction to the Code of Laws of 1809, that the “Russian constitution will owe its existence not to the excitement of passions and the exigency of circumstances, but to the blessed inspiration of the Supreme Power…”. He was wrong. The “blessed” Supreme Power granted reforms to the Russian people only reluctantly and, with few exceptions, always under pressure of revolutionary impact.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1950 , pp. 77 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1950

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Speranskij, M. M., Vvedenie k Uloženiju 1809 goda (Moscow, 1915), p. 15.Google Scholar

2 The American Slavic and East European Review, VII, No. 2 (April, 1948), 123–38.Google Scholar

3 Polnoc sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj imperii (St. Petersburg, 1867), XXXIX, Part II, No. 41473, 180–81.Google Scholar

4 Leroy-Beaulieu, A., The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians, trans, by Rogozin, Z. A. (New York, 1894), II, 252.Google Scholar

5 Jhering called such a law “Zweiseitig verbindende Norm,” i.e., a law which is binding not only on the people, but on the state authorities as well, and which creates the “Rechtszustand” in a state. Jhering, R. V., Der Zweck im Recht (Berlin, 1893), p. 338.Google Scholar

6 Nabokov, V. D., “Obščaja kharakteristika Sudebnoj Reformy,” Sudcbnaja Reforma (Moscow, 1915), I, 344.Google Scholar

7 Proffatt, John A., A Treatise on Trial by Jury (San-Francisco, 1877), p. 14, footnote 1.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., p. 15.

9 Instead of a decision by duel as before.

10 In France the court to which the jury is attached is called Cour d' assises.

11 Lesser, M. A., The Historical Development of the Jury System (Rochester, 1894), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

12 Art. III, par. 2, 3.

13 In the Convention Duport, Barnave, and Robespierre voted for the competence of the jury in civil cases. Against the irremovability of judges were such eminent jurists as Duport and Tronchet.

14 It is incomprehensible that the translator of the modern Russian history by A. Kornilov introduced into the text the following sentence: “ The jury system was copied from the English Courts.” Kornilov, A., Modern Russian History, trans., Kaun, A. S. (New York, 1943), Part II, p. 102 Google Scholar. The Russian original does not and could not contain such an assertion. See Kornilov, A., Kurs istorii Rossii XIX veka (Moscow, 1912), II, 259–63.Google Scholar

15 The bench consisted of three professional judges: a president and two members.

16 In Scotland: “not proved.“

17 It is inconceivable that Kovalevskij could write: “Instead of supporting the prosecutor, as it is usual in France, the presiding judge has to express his opinion.” The last words are in flagrant contradiction with the provision of Article 802. Kovalevskij, Maxim, 'Russian Political Institutions (Chicago, 1902).Google Scholar

18 In England the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 introduced appeal against the accusatory verdict of the trial jury and against the decision of the court.

19 Fojnickij, I., Kurs ugolovnago sudoproizvodstva (St. Petersburg, 1896), I, 43.Google Scholar

20 Marks, K., Sočinenija (Moscow, 1928–39), VIII, 558.Google Scholar

21 Ibid. VII, 496.

22 Lenin, V. I., Sočinenija (3d ed.; Moscow, 1926-32), XXX, 194.Google Scholar

23 Spasovič, V. D., Sočnenija (St. Petersburg, 1890), III, 269.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., Introduction, p. i.

25 Nolde, A. E., “Otnošenija meždu sudebnoj i administrativnoj vlastjami i sud'ba osnovnykh načal Sudebnykh Ustavov v pozdnejčem zakonodatel'stve,” Sudebnye Ustavy 20 nojabrja 1864 g. (Petrograd, 1914), II, 609.Google Scholar

26 The judiciary in England, mentioned above.

27 Pobedonoscev, K. P., Moskovskij sbornik (Moscow, 1896), p. 56.Google Scholar

28 Ščeglovitov, I. G., “Novye popytki izmenit’ postanovku suda prisjažnykh v Zap. Evrope,” Sudebnye Ustavy 20 nojabrja 1864 g., II, 163–64.Google Scholar

29 A. F. Koni, “Sud prisjažnykh,” Enciklopediieskij slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona, Vol. LXIII.

30 Fojnickij, op. cit., p. 166.

31 Koni, op. cit., p. 14.

32 A. Leroy-Beaulieu, op. cit., p. 250.

33 Concerning this trial, a reactionary of that time, Prince Meščerskij, wrote in his memoirs: “ T h e solemn acquittal of Vera Zasulič happened as in a nightmare… . Nobody could understand how such a frightful mockery of the highest servants of the Tsar and such an impudent triumph of faction could take place in a courtroom of an autocratic empire.” Meščerskij, Prince V. P., Moi vospomimnija (St. Petersburg, 1897), II, 402–3.Google Scholar