Speeches of famous Russian lawyers. Lawyers' speeches that saved the world

Independent in his judgments, bold in his views, Andreevsky set the condition that he be given the right in his speech to give a public assessment of Trepov’s actions and his personality. Naturally, the tsarist justice did not agree to such a demand from Andreevsky. After considering the case, V. Zasulich Andreevsky was dismissed.

In connection with Andreevsky’s departure from the prosecutor’s office, A.F. Koni wrote to him on June 16, 1878: “Dear Sergei Arkadyevich .... do not be discouraged, my dear friend, and do not lose heart. I am firmly convinced that your position will soon be determined and it will be brilliant. It will give you freedom and security - it will give you the absence of the consciousness of offensive subordination to all sorts of insignificant individuals. I’m even glad for you that fate pushes you in time onto the path of a free profession. Why didn’t it do this to me 10 years ago ?"

Soon A.F. Koni found him a position as a legal adviser in one of the St. Petersburg banks. In the same 1878, Andreevsky entered the bar.

Already the first trial in which Andreevsky spoke (a speech in defense of Zaitsev, accused of murder), created his reputation as a strong lawyer in criminal cases. His speech in the case of Sarah Becker in defense of Mironovich brought him a reputation as one of the brilliant orators in criminal cases and wide fame outside of Russia.

His methods of defense were different from those of Aleksandrov. He was not distinguished by a deep, comprehensive analysis of the case materials, and did not pay enough attention to the conclusions of the preliminary investigation (the defense speech in the Mironovich case is an exception).

At the heart of Andreevsky’s speeches you will hardly find a thorough analysis of the evidence or sharp polemics with the prosecutor; Rarely did he subject the materials of the preliminary and judicial investigation to a deep and detailed analysis; the basis of the speech was always the personality of the defendant, the conditions of his life, the internal “springs” of the crime.

“Do not base your decision on the proof of his action,” he said in one case, defending the defendant, “but look into his soul and into what inevitably called the defendant to his course of action.”

Andreevsky skillfully used beautiful comparisons. To carry out his defense, he often used sharp comparisons both to refute the prosecution’s arguments and to substantiate his conclusions. In his speeches, he almost did not touch upon major socio-political problems. In the fight against evidence, he was not always at his best, sometimes allowing “protection for the sake of protection.” He widely preached the ideas of humanity and philanthropy in his speeches. Their main attention was paid to the personality of the defendant, the environment in which he lived, and the conditions in which the defendant committed the crime. Andreevsky always gave a psychological analysis of the defendant’s actions deeply, vividly, vividly and convincingly. Without exaggeration, he can be called a master of psychological defense.

When defending complex cases based on circumstantial evidence, he chose only the most convenient points for defense, although he always gave them a thorough analysis.

In cases where not only consistency and infallible logic were required, but also strict legal thinking and research of legislative material, he, as a lawyer, was not up to par, and success failed him. As a judicial orator, S. A. Andreevsky was original, independent, and his oratorical creativity was colored with a bright individuality.

The main feature of him as a judicial speaker is the widespread introduction of literary and artistic techniques into his defense speech. Considering advocacy as an art, he called the defender a “talking writer.” “...Criminal defense, first of all, is not a scientific specialty, but an art, as independent to creative as all other arts, i.e. literature, painting, music, etc....

In complex trials, with insidious and seductive evidence, only an artist who is sensitive, understands life, and knows how to correctly understand witnesses and explain the true everyday conditions of the incident is able to achieve the truth" (S. A. Andreevsky, Dramas of Life, Defensive Speeches, fifth updated edition, Petrograd, 1916, pp. 4--5.).

In the same work, noting the role of the psychological revelation of the defendant’s inner world, Andreevsky said: “Fiction, with its great revelation of the human soul, was to become the main teacher of criminal lawyers.”

Noting the need to introduce literary techniques into criminal defense, he wrote: “Having become a court speaker, touching the “dramas of real life” at a jury trial, I felt that both I and the jurors perceive these dramas, including witnesses - the defendant and the everyday morality of the trial, completely in the spirit and direction of our literature. And I decided to speak to the jury, as our writers speak to the public. I found that the simple, deep, sincere and truthful methods of our literature in assessing life should be transferred to the court ".

He not only expressed these views on defense in the press, but practically put them into practice in court.

His contemporaries said that Andreevsky's style is simple, clear, although somewhat pompous. Andreevsky was a very strong speaker, with a rich vocabulary and extensive experience in judicial work. His speeches are harmonious, smooth, full of vivid, memorable images, but his passion for psychological analysis often prevented him from giving a deep analysis of the evidence, which in a number of cases greatly weakened his speech.

S. A. Andreevsky was also involved in literary activities. He has written many poems and poems. lyrical themes. Since the early eighties, it has been published in Vestnik Evropy. His literary, prose and journalistic works were published in the book “Literary Reading” (1881) - a number of critical articles about Baratynsky, Nekrasov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Garshin.

Andreevsky's court speeches were published as a separate book and went through five editions. This collection includes speeches by Andreevsky, in which the characteristic features of his talent are most clearly emphasized.

Andreev case 1

1 It was considered by the St. Petersburg District Court in 1907.

Gentlemen of the jury!

The murder of a wife or mistress, just like the murder of a husband or lover, with tin, the taking of the life of the closest being in the world, each time raises before us the deepest questions of mental life. We have to study him and her comprehensively. You need to comprehend both and tell the absolute truth about them, taking into account the fact that they did not understand each other, because always and everywhere “another soul is darkness.” And in marriage, where it would seem that husband and wife have the same body - this general rule is confirmed especially often.

By the way, there is hardly another couple so comfortable in appearance and so divided inside as Andreev and Zinaida Nikolaevna.

Let's see how their fate is intertwined.

Let's start with the husband.

Andreev entered into his first marriage in his twenty-third year. The marriage was calm, without much passion. The girl was from a good family, three years younger than Andreev. The couple lived together amicably. Andreev remained a faithful husband in the most precise sense of the word. He didn’t look for diversity in women, didn’t like them, and didn’t even understand them. He was one of the "monogamous" breed. This went on for over ten years. Only in the thirty-fifth year did temptation appear before Andreev in the person of Sarah Levina. Against his will, he was drugged. A “second youth” began to speak within him, if you like, because the first one passed unnoticed. This fatal feeling captures a temperate and incorruptible person much more deeply and completely than the first, natural attraction to a woman. A modest man, who missed the stormy passions of his youth, in such cases thinks to himself: “Here it is, finally, that real happiness that seems to exist.” everyone knows, but I have never experienced it before...

Third edition, revised

State Publishing House

LEGAL LITERATURE

MOSCOW - 1958

Table of contents

 COURT SPEECHES of famous Russian lawyers

 I. Alexandrov Petr Akimovich

 Zasulich case

 Notovich case

 Sarra Modebadze case

 II. Andreevsky Sergey Arkadevich

 Andreev case1

 Bogachev case

 Ivanov’s case

 The Case of the Keles Brothers

 The case of the theft of an emerald brooch

 Mironovich case

 Naumov case

 III. Arsenyev Konstantin Konstantinovich

 The Myasnikovs case

 Rybakovskaya case

 IV. Zhukovsky Vladimir Ivanovich

 Gulak-Artemovskaya case

 Yukhantsev case

 V. Karabchevsky Nikolay Platonovich

 The case of the wreck of the ship "Vladimir"

 Imshenetsky case

 Mironovich case

 The case of Olga Palem

 The case of the Skitsky brothers

 VI. Plevako Fedor Nikiforovich

 Bartenev case

 Gruzinsky case

 Zamyatinin case

 Lukashevich case

 The Case of the Luthoric Peasants

 Maksimenko case1

 The case of the Konshin factory workers

 VII. Spasovich Vladimir Danilovich

 The case of David and Nikolai Chkhotua and others (Tiflis case)

 Dementiev case

 Ovsyannikov case

 The case of Dmitrieva and Kastrubo-Karitsky

 VIII. Urusov Alexander Ivanovich

 Volokhova case

 The case of Dmitrieva and Kastrubo-Karitsky

 Speech by A. I. Urusov in defense of Dmitrieva

 Speech by F. N. Plevako in defense of Kastrubo-Karitsky

 Speech by V. D. Spasovich in defense of Düzing

 Mironovich case

 IX. Khartulari Konstantin Fedorovich

 The case of Marguerite Jujan

 Lebedev case1

 Levenshtein case

 The case of Levitsky and others

 Raznatovsky case

 X. Kholev Nikolay Iosifovich

 Maksimenko case

I. Alexandrov Petr Akimovich

Alexandrov Pyotr Akimovich (1838-1893) is one of the most prominent representatives of Russian pre-revolutionary judicial eloquence, although he never consciously prepared himself for lawyering, precisely for the type of activity where his talent was most manifested. As his contemporaries put it, “fate had prepared for him a brilliant career” in the bureaucratic field of legal institutions, and only his reluctance to subordinate his will to the strict orders of others prevented his “triumphant ascent up the career ladder.”

P. A. Alexandrov was born in the Oryol province into the family of a minor clergyman. The father's inconspicuous post did not provide sufficient material resources for the normal existence of the family. The Alexandrov family often endured hardships and hardships. All this, as well as Pyotr Akimovich’s observations of the life around him, left a heavy imprint on his mentality and way of thinking. L. D. Lyakhovetsky recalled that Alexandrov “...he himself loved to talk about the unsightly conditions of his past life, which led him to thoughts of a sad nature. The life of his parents, who suffered a lot from the tyranny of the powerful, was sad! In his childhood, the boy witnessed the desecration of humanity the dignity of his father, who meekly endured all the insults rained down on his head. These impressions sank deeply into the child’s soul" (L. D. Lyakhovetsky, Characteristics of famous Russian judicial speakers, St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 5.). These impressions, however, not only sank into his soul, but also remained for the rest of his life. Independence of judgments and views, inflexibility of character, firmness of convictions, brought up by a harsh life and which prevented his consistent ascent in the career field, served him well as a sworn attorney in the ranks of Russian lawyers.

P. A. Alexandrov graduated from the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg University in 1860, after which he held various positions in the Ministry of Justice for 15 years: comrade prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court, prosecutor of the Pskov District Court, comrade prosecutor of the St. Petersburg Court Chamber and, finally, comrade chief prosecutor Cassation Department of the Government Senate. In 1876, Alexandrov, after an official conflict caused by his superiors’ disapproval of his conclusion in court in one of the cases where he defended freedom of the press, retired and entered the legal profession in the same year.

As a defender, Alexandrov attracted attention with his performance in the well-known political trial of the “193s”. The case was heard in 1877-78. in the St. Petersburg District Court behind closed doors. The best forces of the St. Petersburg Bar took part as defenders in the process.

Responding to the tactless trick of the accuser Zhelekhovsky. who stated that almost a hundred defendants acquitted in this case were brought in by him to “form a background” for the rest of the defendants, Aleksandrov in his speech “threatened Zhelekhovsky with posterity who would nail his name to the pillory with a nail... and with a sharp nail!” (A.F. Koni, Selected works, State Publishing House, 1956, p. 532.).

Previously little known as a lawyer, Alexandrov attracted public attention with a thoughtful speech and skillful, persuasive polemic with the prosecutor.

Evaluating his speech at the trial of the “193s,” one of the participants in the trial wrote: “The final words of his exemplary speech, among the friendly and coordinated chorus of voices of excellent defense, still sounded in the purest and highest notes. Whoever heard this speech will never forget it ".

Soon after this case, the St. Petersburg District Court heard a case charging Vera Zasulich with the attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The speech Alexandrov delivered in defense of Vera Zasulich brought him wide fame not only in Russia, but also abroad.

“The defendant,” recalls L. D. Lyakhovetsky about Alexandrov’s speech in the case of Vera Zasulich, “chose P. A. Alexandrov as her defender. They marveled at the unfortunate choice. The St. Petersburg bar had so many representatives with renowned talents, but for a difficult case An unknown lawyer, a former official who had left office, was elected.

A whisper of amazement was heard in the courtroom when, on the day of the hearing, the figure of Alexandrov approached the defense bench. “Is it really him?...”.

P. A. Alexandrov seemed like a pygmy who had taken on the work of a giant. He will die, he will disgrace himself and ruin the business. Many people thought and said so, almost everyone. Contrary to expectations, his speech immediately revealed his colossal, powerful, fighting talent. The unknown defender of the officials came out of the court famous, with a stamp of glory. His speech, reproduced the next day in the newspapers, made his name known throughout reading Russia. The talent received universal recognition. Yesterday's pygmy suddenly turned into a giant. One speech created a loud reputation for this man, elevated him, revealing the full power of his talent" (L. D. Lyakhovetsky, op. cit. pp. 6-7; in connection with the wishes of the readers, this speech by Alexandrov, regardless of the fact that it was published in the book of selected works by A.F. Koni (Gosyuriadat, 1956), published in this Collection.).

However, it would be wrong to think that this is the speech. brought P. A. Alexandrov fame due to its external effects. On the contrary, it is distinguished by moderation of tones and the absence of excessive colors. In this speech, P. A. Alexandrov brilliantly showed that it is not Zasulich’s premeditated intention that is the driving motive for the crime committed, but the entire set of lawless and unlawful actions of General Trepov, the mayor of St. Petersburg, is the true reason for the crime. Aleksandrov showed with great force in his speech on the case of Vera Zasulich that in reality she should not occupy the dock, but, on the contrary, the one who took the sympathetic role of the victim in the trial should actually be tried in the case as an accused. P. A. Aleksandrov’s speech in this case undoubtedly largely prepared the jury’s acquittal verdict. In high bureaucratic and government circles it was received with exceptional disapproval. This, however, could not shake Alexandrov as a courageous and steadfast judicial speaker in his convictions.

Pyotr Akimovich’s oratorical talent was demonstrated with no less force in his speech on the case of Sarah Modebadze.

Carrying out the defense of four completely innocent people, understanding the great public resonance that this process had, and his role in this case, he gave his defensive speech a great public resonance. Ov correctly assessed the social roots and breeding ground of this dirty, shameful affair, and boldly raised his voice in defense of the innocent, sacrificed to reactionary ideas aimed at inciting national hatred.

P. A. Aleksandrov studied the material related to the case under consideration, showed a keen knowledge of the special issues being examined at the trial, and successfully refuted the conclusions of the examination on which the accusation was based.

Aleksandrov understood that his voice was being listened to by broad progressive strata of Russia. He boldly revealed the atmosphere in which this matter was created. At the beginning of his speech, Aleksandrov says that the real process “... all of Russia wants to know, Russian public opinion will judge it.” Aleksandrov emphasizes that the speech is intended not only for the court, but also for those “who with blatant slander will desecrate the verdict if it is against their dirty desires, for those who want to look for technical motives in it, to the level of which he himself has never risen ... for those who wish to know the truth of the present matter without a biased view, for those who wish to look in it for grounds for criticizing the old prejudice - a superstitious and tribal prejudice."

In this process, Aleksandrov acted as a speaker who gained great and well-deserved authority - as a defender who was deeply interested and concerned about the social roots of this case. In this deeply meaningful speech, he was interested not only in the evidence, but also in the social atmosphere that gave rise to the grave accusation and the undeserved persecution of innocent people.

Having analyzed the elements of the crime and carefully analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecutor, he skillfully showed the groundlessness of the prosecutor’s arguments.

Having completed a thorough analysis of the evidence, he, trying to once again emphasize the social significance of this process, having carefully worked out his main conclusion, said about the case being examined: “It will remind the Russian people of justice, which is all they need so that such sad cases do not repeat themselves. This is an instructive word for our public figures, who hold our honor and freedom in their power. It will tell Russian investigators that they should not be carried away by popular superstition, but dominate it... it will tell Russian prosecutors that they are not dear and amiable to society only as guardians of society from criminal attacks, but especially as guardians of it from unfounded suspicions and false accusations."

Convincing speech in defense. words and seals were spoken by Alexandrov in the Notovich case. And in this speech he showed his intelligence and brilliant oratorical talent.

“To understand and appreciate Alexandrov’s speech, wrote the famous pre-revolutionary publicist G. Dzhanshiev, it was not enough to grab the glitter of loud phrases on the fly, you had to listen to it with concentration, with attention and listen to the end. At P. A.’s first debut in Moscow, first his speech caused disappointment. So this is Aleksandrov? - said the disappointed listeners, accustomed from the very beginning to hear a set of florid metaphors and the hype of sparkles of tinsel eloquence. But the further the argument moved forward, the deeper the analysis went, set out in a strictly systematic order of the smallest details of the case, the more captivated speaker with the attention of the audience. And when the speech ended, the audience expressed regret that it ended so soon, trying to remember those apt characteristics, caustic “excursions” (such was the “excursion” into the area of ​​the rod in the Zasulich case) into the area of ​​public issues that was always full of strictly logical, witty, business-like speech, full of occasional good-natured humor, more often of that destructive sarcasm and biting irony, which, as Herzen put it, “infuriates more than makes you laugh” (Gr. Dzhanshiev, The Age of Great Reforms, St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 735.).

They said about Alexandrov’s sarcasm that it kills on the spot like an explosive bullet. Such crushing power of his “Belov” Alexandrov was due to his excellent knowledge of the matter, which, according to the definition of one speaker, “the best of eloquence.”

The most characteristic of P. A. Alexandrov’s judicial oratorical skills is the solid logic and consistency of his judgments, the ability to carefully weigh and determine the place of any evidence in the case, as well as convincingly argue and substantiate his most important arguments. Not possessing the ability to create vivid images, he, however, always strived to simplify speech and made a lot of efforts to make it accessible and understandable. This explains the fact that his speeches, as a rule, are distinguished by correct grammatical finish, ease of style, purity and clarity of language. The main thing in his activity as a lawyer is his power of persuasion, which, combined with his oratorical talent, ensured his success in many complex criminal cases.

Zasulich case
Vera Ivanovna Zasulich was accused of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor, General Trepov, committed by her with a pistol shot on January 24, 1878. The prosecuting authority qualified Zasulich’s crime as premeditated, with premeditated intent.

The true motive for this crime was Zasulich’s indignation at the lawless actions of General Trepov, who gave the order to flog the political prisoner Bogolyubov, who was being held in a pre-trial detention house, with rods. General Trepov's action was widely discussed in the press and various public circles. The most advanced of them assessed this act as a cruel act of violence, arbitrariness and outrage against the human person, incompatible with the principles of humanity. The shot by V. Zasulich sounded as an expression of protest against the actions of General Trepov on the part of the progressive public.

When considering the Zasulich case, the tsarist justice suggested that the prosecutors not evaluate Trepov’s actions in their speech. This condition was not accepted by Andreevsky and Zhukovsky, who refused to act as prosecutors in this process (see their biographical information). However, not only an assessment of Trepov’s actions, but also a ardent condemnation of the use of corporal punishment in general was brilliantly given in the speech of Alexandrov, who defended Vera Zasulich. ---

The case was considered by the St. Petersburg District Court with the participation of jurors on March 31, 1878 (For details about the circumstances of the Zasulich case, see A.F. Koni, Selected Works, Gosyurizdat, 1956, pp. 497-703.).

* * *
Gentlemen of the jury! I listened to the noble, restrained speech of Comrade Prosecutor, and I completely agree with much of what he said; We disagree only on very little, but, nevertheless, my task after the speech of Mr. Prosecutor did not turn out to be easier. It is not in the facts of the present case, nor in their complexity, that its difficulty lies; the matter is simply due to its circumstances, so simple that if we limit ourselves to the event of January 24, then there is almost no need to reason. Who will deny that arbitrary murder is a crime; who will deny what the defendant claims, that it is difficult to raise your hand for arbitrary reprisal?

All these are truths that cannot be argued against, but the fact is that the event of January 24 cannot be considered separately from another case: it is so connected, so intertwined with the fact of what happened in the pre-trial detention center on July 13, that if the meaning of the assassination attempt is unclear, carried out by V. Zasulich on the life of Adjutant General Trepov, it can only be understood by comparing this attempt with the motives that began with the incident in the pre-trial detention center. In the comparison itself, strictly speaking, there would be nothing difficult; very often, not only such a crime is examined, but also the fact that gave the motive for this crime. But in the present case this connection becomes more complicated to some extent, and it becomes difficult to explain. In fact, there is no doubt that the order of Adjutant General Trepov was an official order. But we are not judging an official now, and Adjutant General Trepov appears here at the present time not as an official on trial, but as a witness, a person who has suffered from a crime; In addition, a sense of decency, which we would not dare to transgress in our defense and which cannot but instill in us a certain restraint regarding Adjutant General Trepov as a person who has suffered from a crime, I understand very well that I cannot touch upon the actions of an official and discuss them in the way they are discussed when this official is being tried as a defendant. But it seems to me that we can get out of the difficult situation in which the defense finds itself in this case as follows.

Every official and commanding person appears to me in the form of a two-faced Janus, placed in a temple on a mountain; one side of this Janus is turned to the law, to the authorities, to the court; it is illuminated and discussed by them; the discussion here is complete, valid, truthful; the other side is facing us, mere mortals, standing in the vestibule of the temple, under the mountain. We look at this side, and it is not always equally illuminated for us. We sometimes approach it only with a simple lantern, with a penny candle, with a dim lamp, much is dark for us, much leads us to such judgments that do not agree with the views of the authorities, the court on the same actions of an official. But we live in these, perhaps sometimes erroneous, concepts; on the basis of them we harbor certain feelings for an official, we blame him or praise him, we love him or remain indifferent to him, we rejoice if we find a motive for our actions. , for which we are on trial and must be held accountable, then it is important to keep in mind not only whether the actions of an official are correct or incorrect from the point of view of the law, but how we ourselves looked at them. Not the judgment of the law about the official action, but our views on it must be accepted as circumstances that determine the degree of our responsibility. Even if these views are incorrect, they are important not for the trial of an official, but for the trial of our actions, consistent with certain concepts that guided us.

In order to fully judge the motive of our actions, we need to know how these motives are reflected in our concepts. Thus, in my judgment about the event of July 13, there will be no discussion of the actions of the official, but only an explanation of how this event affected the mind and beliefs of Vera Zasulich. Remaining within these limits, I believe that I will not be a judge of the actions of an official and then I hope that within these limits I will be given the necessary legal freedom of speech and at the same time will be shown leniency if I dwell in some detail on such circumstances as At first glance they may not seem directly relevant. Being the defender of V. Zasulich, by her own election, having heard from her, in my conversations with her, much that she found necessary to convey to me, I involuntarily fall into the fear of not being a complete spokesman for her opinion and missing out on something that, according to in the view of the defendant herself, may be important for her case.

I could now begin directly with the incident of July 13th, but it is necessary first to examine the ground that gave rise to the connection between July 13th and January 24th. This connection lies in the entire past, in the entire life of V. Zasulich. It is very instructive to consider this life; it is instructive to consider it not only for the interests of the present case, not only in order to determine to what extent V. Zasulich is guilty, but her past is also instructive for extracting from it other materials necessary and useful for resolving such issues that go beyond the limits court: to study the soil that often produces crime and criminals in our country. You have already been informed about some biographical information about V. Zasulich; they are not long, and I will have to dwell only on some of them.

You remember that from the age of seventeen, after completing her education in one of the Moscow boarding schools, after she passed the exam for the title of home teacher with honors, Zasulich returned to her mother’s house. Her old mother lives in St. Petersburg. In a relatively short period of time, a seventeen-year-old girl had the opportunity to meet Nechaev and his sister. She met her quite by accident, at a teacher's school, where she went to study the sound method of teaching literacy. She didn’t know who Nechaev was, what his plans were, and then no one knew him in Russia; he was considered a simple student who played some role in student unrest, which did not represent anything political.

At Nechaev’s request, V. Zasulich agreed to provide him with some very ordinary service. Three or four times she accepted letters from him and delivered them to the address, without, of course, knowing anything about the contents of the letters themselves. Subsequently, it turned out that Nechaev was a state criminal, and her completely random relationship with Nechaev served as the basis for bringing her in as a suspect in a state crime in the well-known Nechaev case. You remember from V. Zasulich’s story that this suspicion cost her two years in prison. She spent a year in the Lithuanian Castle and a year in the Peter and Paul Fortress. These were the eighteenth and nineteenth years of her youth.

The years of youth are rightly considered the best years in a person’s life; Memories of them, impressions of these years remain for life. A recent child is preparing to become a mature person. Life still appears from a distance as a clear, rosy, seductive side without dark shadows, without dark spots. The young man experiences a lot in these short years, and what he experiences leaves a mark on him for the rest of his life. For a man, this is the time for higher education; here the first lasting sympathies awaken; friendships are made here; from here they take forever love for the place of their education, for their alma mater (Nursing mother.). For a girl, the years of youth represent a time of blossoming, full development; Having ceased to be a child, still free from the duties of a wife and mother, the girl lives with complete joy, with a full heart. This is the time of first love, carelessness, cheerful hopes, unforgettable joys, the time of friendship; then it’s time for all that dear, elusively fleeting things that a mature mother and an old grandmother like to turn to with their memories.

It is easy to imagine how Zasulich spent these best years of her life, in what amusements, in what joys she spent this dear time, what rosy dreams excited her within the walls of the Lithuanian Castle and the casemates of the Peter and Paul Fortress. Complete alienation from everything behind the prison wall. For two years she did not see her mother, relatives or friends. Occasionally, only through the prison authorities, news came from them that everyone, thank God, was healthy. No work, no classes. Sometimes only a book that passed through prison censorship. The ability to take a few steps around the room and the complete inability to see anything through the prison window. Lack of air, rare walks, bad sleep, poor nutrition. The human image is seen only in the prison guard, bringing lunch, and in the sentry, looking, from time to time, at the door window to find out what the prisoner is doing. The sound of locks opening and closing, the clanking of guns of changing sentries, the measured steps of the guard and the sadly musical ringing of the clock of the Peter and Paul Spitz. Instead of friendship, love, human communication - only the consciousness that on the right and on the left, behind the wall, are the same comrades in misfortune, the same victims of an unfortunate lot.

During these years of nascent sympathies, Zasulich really created and cemented in her soul forever one sympathy - selfless love for anyone who, like her, is forced to drag out the unhappy life of a suspect in a political crime. The political prisoner, whoever he was, became her dear friend, a comrade of her youth, a comrade in her upbringing. Prison was the aima mater for her, which cemented this friendship, this camaraderie.

Two years are over. Zasulich was released without even finding any reason to bring her to trial. They told her: “Go,” and did not even add: “And sin no more,” because no sins were found, and so far none were found that in the course of two years she was only asked twice, and At one time I seriously thought, for many months, that she was completely forgotten: “Go.” Where should we go? Luckily, she has somewhere to go - she has an old mother here, in St. Petersburg, who will happily meet her daughter. Mother and daughter were delighted with the date; it seemed as if two difficult years had disappeared from memory. Zasulich was still young - she was only twenty-one. Her mother consoled her and said: “You’ll get better, Verochka, now everything will pass, everything ended well.” Indeed, it seemed that suffering would be cured, young life would overcome, and no traces of the difficult years of imprisonment would remain.

It was spring, dreams began of summer dacha life, which could seem like an earthly paradise after prison life; Ten days full of rosy dreams have passed. Suddenly a late call. Isn't this a belated friend? It turns out that he is not a friend, but also not an enemy, but a local warden. He explains to Zasulich that she has been ordered to be sent to a transit prison. “How to go to prison? Probably this is a misunderstanding, I was not involved in the Nechaev case, I was not put on trial, the case against me was terminated by the judicial chamber and the Governing Senate.” “I can’t know,” the warden answers, “please, I’m from I have orders from the authorities to take you."

The mother is forced to let her daughter go. She gave her something: a light dress, a burnous, and said: “Tomorrow we will visit you, we will go to the prosecutor, this arrest is an obvious misunderstanding, the matter will be explained and you will be released.”

Five days pass, V. Zasulich sits in a transit prison with full confidence of his imminent release.

Is it possible that after the case was dismissed by the judiciary, which found no reason to accuse Zasulich of anything, she, a barely twenty-year-old girl living with her mother, could be deported, and deported having just been released, after a two-year prison sentence? .

Her mother and sister visit her in the transit prison; they bring her sweets and books; no one imagines that she could be deported, and no one is preoccupied with preparations for the impending deportation.

On the fifth day of detention they say to her: “Please, you are now being sent to the city of Krestsy.” - “How are they being sent? Yes, I have nothing for the journey. Wait, at least give me the opportunity to let my relatives know, to warn them. I’m sure , that there is some kind of misunderstanding. Show me leniency, wait, delay my sending for at least a day, two, I’ll let my relatives know." - “It’s impossible,” they say, “we can’t by law, they demand that you be sent immediately ".

There was nothing to discuss. Zasulich understood that she had to obey the law, she just didn’t know what kind of law we were talking about. She went in one dress, in a light burnous; While I was traveling by rail, it was bearable, then I went by postal car, in a wagon, between two gendarmes. It was the month of April, it became unbearably cold in the light burnouse: the gendarme took off his overcoat and dressed the young lady. They brought her to Kresttsy. In Krestsy they gave it to the police officer, the police officer issued a receipt for accepting the luggage and said to Zasulich: “Go, I’m not holding you, you are not under arrest. Go and report to the police department on Saturdays, since you are under our supervision.”

Zasulich considers her resources, with which she has to start a new life in an unknown city. She turns out to have a ruble of money, a French book, and a box of chocolates.

There was a kind man, a sexton, who placed her in his family. She did not have the opportunity to find work in Krestsy, especially since it was impossible to hide the fact that she was expelled by administrative order. I will not then repeat other details that V. Zasulich herself told.

From Krestsy she had to go to Tver, to Soligalich, to Kharkov. Thus began her wandering life, the life of a woman under police surveillance. She was searched, called in for various interviews, sometimes subjected to delays other than arrests, and finally, she was completely forgotten.

When she was no longer required to report weekly to the local police authorities, she was given the opportunity to smuggle herself to St. Petersburg and then go to the Penza province with her sister’s children. Here, in the summer of 1877, she reads for the first time in the newspaper “Golos” the news of Bogolyubov’s punishment.

May I be allowed, before moving on to this news, to make another small excursion into the area of ​​the rod.

I have no intention, gentlemen of the jury, to present to your attention the history of the rod - this would lead me into an area that is too remote, to very distant pages of our history, for the history of the Russian rod is very long. No, I don’t want to tell you the story of the rod, I want to give only a few memories about the last days of her life.

Vera Ivanovna Zasulich belongs to the younger generation. She began to remember herself only when new orders had arrived, when the rods had receded into the realm of legend. But we, the people of the previous generation, we still remember the complete dominance of the rod, which existed until April 17, 1863. The rod reigned everywhere: at school, at a secular gathering, it was an indispensable accessory in the landowner’s stable, then in the barracks, in the police department. .. There was a legend - apocryphal, however, of a nature - that somewhere a Russian rod was brought into union with an English mechanism, and the Russian section was performed according to all the rules of the most refined European politeness. However, no one confirmed the authenticity of this legend with their own experience. In the books of our criminal, civil and military laws, the rod covered every page. It made up some kind of light melodic chime in the general thunderous roar of the whip, whip and spitzrutens. But the great day came, which all of Russia honors - April 17, 1863 - and the rod passed into the realm of history. True, not the rod, but all other corporal punishments were completely avoided. The rod was not completely destroyed, but it was extremely limited. At that time there were many fears about the complete destruction of the rod, fears that were not shared by the government, but which worried some members of the intelligentsia. It suddenly seemed somehow inconvenient and dangerous to them to leave Russia without the rod, which for so long had led its history next to the rod - Russia, which, in their deep conviction, had developed into a vast power and achieved its greatness almost thanks to the rod. How did it seem to suddenly be left without this cement that binds social foundations? As if to console these thinkers, the rod remained in very limited dimensions and lost its publicity.

For what reasons they decided to keep it, I don’t know, but I think that it remained, as it were, in the form of a souvenir after a person who died or left forever. Such souvenirs are usually purchased and stored in small quantities. You don’t need a whole chignon here, just one curl is enough; the souvenir is usually not displayed outside, but is stored in the locket’s hiding place, in a distant drawer. Such souvenirs do not survive more than one generation.

When any transformation is born in the historical life of a people that is capable of raising the spirit of the people and elevating their human dignity, then such a transformation takes root and bears fruit. Thus, the abolition of corporal punishment had a tremendous impact on raising the sense of human dignity among the Russian people. Now the soldier who brought himself to punishment with rods has become disgraced; Now the peasant who allows himself to be punished with rods is ridiculous and considered dishonest.

It was at this time, fifteen years after the abolition of the rod, which, however, had long been abolished for persons of the privileged class, a shameful beheading was carried out on a politically convicted prisoner. This circumstance could not escape the attention of society: they started talking about it in St. Petersburg, and newspaper news soon appeared about it. And it was these newspaper news that gave the first impetus to V. Zasulich’s thoughts. The short newspaper news about the punishment of Bogolyubov with rods could not help but make an overwhelming impression on Zasulich. It made such an impression on anyone who knew the sense of honor and human dignity.

A person, by his birth, upbringing and education, is alien to the rod; a person who deeply feels and understands all its shameful and humiliating meaning; a man who, by his way of thinking, by his convictions and feelings, could not see and hear the execution of a shameful execution on others without a heart shudder - this man himself had to endure on his own skin the overwhelming effect of humiliating punishment

What, Zasulich thought, what a painful torture, what a contemptuous desecration of everything that constitutes the most essential property of a developed person, and not only a developed person, but also of everyone who is not alien to the sense of honor and human dignity.

V. Zasulich could not discuss the punishment carried out on Bogolyubov from the point of view of the formalities of the law, but even for her it could not have been clear from the very newspaper news that Bogolyubov, although he was sentenced to hard labor, had not yet entered the category of exiled convicts, that everything that, according to the fiction of the law, takes away honor from a person, breaks all connections with the past and reduces him to the position of being deprived of all rights has not yet been fulfilled over him. Bogolyubov was still kept in the pre-trial detention center; he lived among the same surroundings, among people who reminded him of his previous situation.

No, V. Zasulich did not discuss Bogolyubov’s punishment from a formal point of view; there was another point of view, less special, more heartfelt, more human, which in no way made it possible to reconcile with the reasonableness and fairness of the punishment carried out on Bogolyubov.

Bogolyubov was convicted of a state crime. He belonged to a group of young, very young people who were on trial for a criminal demonstration on the square of the Kazan Cathedral. All of St. Petersburg knows about this manifestation, and everyone then reacted with regret to these young people, who so recklessly declared themselves political criminals, to these young forces that were so unproductively ruined. The court took a strict approach to the act being judged. The attempt was, in the eyes of the court, a very dangerous attack on public order, and the law was applied with due severity. But the severity of the sentence for the crime did not exclude the possibility of seeing that the attempt by the young people was a regrettable delusion and was not based on such calculations, selfish motives, criminal intentions, that, on the contrary, it was based on a good passion that the young mind could not cope with, living character, and allowed them to go down the wrong path, which led to unfortunate consequences.

The characteristic features of the moral side of state crimes cannot but attract attention. The physiognomy of state crimes is often very changeable. What was considered a state crime yesterday, today or tomorrow becomes a highly respected feat of civil valor. A crime against the state is often just a doctrine of premature transformation expressed at different times, a preaching of something that is not yet mature enough and for which the time has not yet come.

All this, despite the grave punishment of the law that befalls a state criminal, does not allow us to see in him a despicable, rejected member of society, does not allow us to drown out sympathy: for everything that is high, honest, kind, and reasonable that remains in him outside the scope of his criminal act.

We, during the present glorious reign, then with the delight of youth, greeted the elders, returned by royal mercy from the snows of Siberia, these state criminals who became energetic figures in various branches of great transformations, those transformations, the untimely dream of which cost them years of hard labor.

Bogolyubov was deprived of all the rights of his estate by a court verdict and sentenced to hard labor. Deprivation of all rights and hard labor is one of the most severe punishments of our legislation. Deprivation of all rights and hard labor can equally befall a wide variety of serious crimes, despite all the differences in their moral background. There is nothing unfair about this yet. Punishment, as far as it concerns the sphere of law, changes in social status, imprisonment, forced labor, can befall a criminal of the most varied nature without particularly glaring unevenness. The robber, the arsonist, the spreader of heresy, and finally, the state criminal can be equalized without obvious injustice by the punishment that befalls them.

But there is a sphere that is not amenable to law, where the leveling law is powerless to penetrate, where any legal equalization would be the greatest injustice. I mean the sphere of mental and moral development, the sphere of beliefs, feelings, tastes, the sphere of everything that constitutes the mental and moral heritage of a person.

A highly developed state criminal, full of honest moral principles, and an immoral, despicable robber or thief can equally, wall to wall, drag out long years of imprisonment, can equally bear the hard labor of mining work, but no law, no situation created for them by punishment, is able to equalize them in everything that constitutes the mental and moral sphere of man. What, therefore, for one person constitutes an insignificant deprivation, a light punishment, for another can amount to severe moral torture, unbearable, inhuman torture.

A punitive law can take away external honor, all the external differences associated with it, but no law can destroy a person’s sense of moral honor, moral dignity by a judicial verdict, change the moral content of a person, deprive him of everything that constitutes an inalienable property of his development. And if the law cannot provide for all the moral, individual differences of the criminal, which are determined by their past, then the general moral justice inherent in man comes to the rescue, which should suggest what is applicable to one and what would be the highest injustice if applied to another.

If from this point of view of general justice we look at the punishment applied to Bogolyubov, then the exciting, heavy feeling of indignation that took possession of anyone unable to be indifferent to the moral torture of their neighbor will become understandable.

Zasulich reacted to the news of Bogolyubov’s shameful punishment with a feeling of deep, irreconcilable insult for the moral dignity of a person.

What was Bogolyubov to her? He was not a relative or friend to her, he was not her acquaintance, she had never seen or known him. But in order to be indignant at the sight of a morally crushed person, in order to become indignant at the shameful mockery of a defenseless person, do you need to be a sister, a wife, a lover? For Zasulich, Bogolyubov was a political prisoner, and this word meant everything for her: a political prisoner was not for Zasulich an abstract idea, read from books, familiar from rumors, from trials - an idea that arouses in an honest soul a feeling of regret, compassion, heartfelt sympathy. For Zasulich, the political prisoner was herself, her bitter past, her own story - the story of irretrievably ruined years, the best and dearest in the life of every person who does not suffer the hard lot suffered by Zasulich. For Zasulich, a political prisoner was a bitter memory of her own suffering, her severe nervous excitement, constant anxiety, painful uncertainty, eternal thought over the questions: What have I done? What will happen to me? When will the end come? The political prisoner was her own heart, and any rough touch to this heart had a painful effect on her excited nature.

In the provincial wilderness, the newspaper news had an even stronger effect on Zasulich than it could have had here in the capital. She was alone there. She had no one to share her doubts with, she had no one to hear a word of participation on the issue that was occupying her. No, Zasulich thought, the news is probably false, or at least exaggerated. Is it really now, and precisely now, she thought, that such a phenomenon is possible? Are 20 years of progress, softening of morals, philanthropic attitude towards the arrested, improvement of judicial and prison procedures, limitation of personal arbitrariness, really 20 years of raising the personality and dignity of a person crossed out and forgotten without a trace? Is it really possible to add to the grave sentence that befell Bogolyubov an even more grave contempt for his human personality, the oblivion in him of his entire past, of everything that his upbringing and development gave him? Was it really necessary to impose an indelible shame on this, let’s say, criminal, but in any case not despicable person? There is nothing surprising, Zasulich continued to think, that Bogolyubov, in a state of nervous excitement, so understandable in a solitary prisoner, could, without controlling himself, allow himself to violate one or another prison rules, but in the event of such violations, even if they are recognized as culpable to a person in the exceptional state of his spirit, the prison authorities have other measures that have nothing to do with punishment with rods. And what action does the newspaper report attribute to Bogolyubov? Failure to remove the hat during a second meeting with an honored visitor. No, this is incredible, Zasulich calmed down; Let's wait, there will be a refutation, there will be an explanation of the incident; in all likelihood, it will not be the same as presented.

But there were no explanations, no refutations, no voice, no obedience. The silence of silence was not conducive to the silence of excited feelings. And again the image of Bogolyubov, subjected to shameful punishment, arose in the woman’s exalted head, and the inflamed imagination tried to guess, to experience everything that the unfortunate man could experience. A picture was drawn that disturbed the soul, but it was still only a picture of one’s own imagination, not verified by any data, not supplemented by rumors, stories of eyewitnesses, witnesses of punishment; soon both appeared.

In September Zasulich was in St. Petersburg; here she could already verify the incident that occupied her thoughts according to the stories of eyewitnesses or people who heard directly from eyewitnesses. The content of the stories was not capable of pacifying the indignant feeling. The newspaper report turned out to be unexaggerated; on the contrary, it was supplemented with such details that made one shudder, which led to indignation. It was told and confirmed that Bogolyubov had no intention of showing disrespect or disobedience, that it was a natural evasion of the suggestion that threatened him, that the attempt to knock Bogolyubov’s hat off caused screams from the prisoners who were watching the incident, regardless of any indignation they had towards Bogolyubov. The outrageous details of the preparation and execution of the punishment were further told. Into the courtyard, into which the cries of prisoners, agitated by the incident with Bogolyubov, rushed from the windows of the cells, the prison warden appears and, in order to “calm” the excitement, announces the upcoming punishment of Bogolyubov with rods, without actually calming anyone down, but, undoubtedly, proving that he , the caretaker, has both practical tact and understanding of the human heart. In front of the windows of the women's prison cells, in view of the women frightened by something unusual happening in the prison, bunches of rods are tied, as if a whole company was to be torn; hands are warmed up, rehearsals are made for the upcoming execution, and in the end the nervous excitement of the prisoners is aroused to such an extent that the lictors consider it necessary to get into the barn and from there carry out bunches of rods already hidden under their greatcoats.

Now, from fragmentary stories, from guesses, from hints, it was not difficult to imagine the real picture of the execution. This pale, frightened figure of Bogolyubov stood up, not knowing what he had done, what they wanted to do to him; a painful image of him arose in my thoughts. Here he is, brought to the place of execution and amazed by the news of the shame that is being prepared for him; here he is, full of indignation and thinking that this power of indignation will give him the strength of Samson to withstand the fight against the mass of lictors, executors of punishment; here he is, falling under a mass of pounds of human bodies settled on his shoulders, prostrate on the floor, shamefully naked by several pairs of arms, like iron, chained, deprived of any ability to resist, and above this whole picture is the measured whistling of birch twigs, and also the measured counting of blows noble administrator of the execution. Everything froze in anxious anticipation of a groan; this groan was heard - it was not a groan of physical pain - it was not what they were counting on; it was the painful groan of a strangled, humiliated, insulted, crushed man. The sacred act was completed, the shameful sacrifice was made!..

The information received by Zasulich was detailed, thorough, and reliable. Now grave doubts have been replaced by even graver fame. The fatal question arose with all its restless insistence. Who will stand up for the violated honor of a helpless convict? Who will wash away, who and how will atone for that shame, with which the unfortunate person will forever remind himself of himself with inconsolable pain? The condemned man will endure the severity of hard labor with firmness, but will not reconcile himself with this retribution for his crime, perhaps he will recognize its justice, perhaps the moment will come when mercy from the height of the throne will open for him, when they say to him: “You have atoned for your guilt, enter again into that society from which you have been removed—enter and be a citizen again.” But who and how will erase in his heart the memory of shame, of desecrated dignity; who and how will wash away that stain that will remain indelible in his memory for the rest of his life? Finally, where is the guarantee against a repetition of such an incident? Bogolyubov has many comrades in misfortune - should they really exist under the fear of the ever-present possibility of experiencing what Bogolyubov had to endure? If lawyers could create deprivation of rights, then why don’t psychologists and moralists come with the means to take away from the person deprived of his rights his moral physiognomy, his human nature, his state of mind; Why don’t they point out ways to reduce the convict to the level of cattle, feeling physical pain and alien to mental suffering?

I thought so, I didn’t think so so much as V. Zasulich instinctively felt. I speak with her thoughts, I speak almost with her words. Perhaps there is much that is exalted, painfully exaggerated, in her thoughts, in the questions that trouble her, in her bewilderment. Perhaps a lawyer would find himself in these perplexities by summing up a decent article of the law that directly justifies the case with Bogolyubov: can’t we find an article of the law if we need to find it? Perhaps an experienced guardian of order would have proven that it was impossible to do otherwise, as was done with Bogolyubov, that order could not exist otherwise. Perhaps, not a guardian of order, but simply a practical person, would have said, with complete confidence in the reasonableness of his advice: “Come on, Vera Ivanovna, this is the very thing: it’s not you who was flogged.”

But a lawyer, a guardian of order, and a practical person would not have resolved the doubts that worried Zasulich, would not have calmed her mental anxiety. We must not forget that Zasulich is an exalted, nervous, painful, impressionable nature; We must not forget that the suspicion of a political crime that fell on her, almost a child at that time, a suspicion that was not justified, but cost her two years of solitary confinement, and then homeless wandering, broke her nature, forever leaving the memory of the suffering of a political prisoner, pushed her life on that path and in that environment where there are many reasons for suffering and emotional unrest, but where there is little room for peace of mind on considerations of practical vulgarity.

In conversations with friends and acquaintances, alone day and night, among classes and idleness, Zasulich could not tear herself away from the thought of Bogolyubov, and there was no source of sympathetic help, no source of satisfaction for her soul, agitated by questions: who would stand up for the disgraced Bogolyubov, who would stand up for the fate of others unfortunate people in Bogolyubov's position? Zasulich was waiting for this intercession from the press, she was waiting for the raising and arousal of the question that worried her so much. Mindful of the limits, the seal remained silent. Zasulich was waiting for help from the power of public opinion. Public opinion did not creep out from the silence of the office, from the intimate circle of friendly conversations. She was finally waiting for a word from justice. Justice... But nothing was heard from him.

And expectations remained expectations. But the heavy thoughts and mental anxieties did not subside. And again, and again, and again, and again the image of Bogolyubov and all his surroundings appeared.

It was not the sounds of the chains that troubled the soul, but the gloomy vaults of the dead house that chilled the imagination; scars—shameful scars—cut the heart, and the sepulchral voice of one buried alive sounded:

Why is anger silent in you, brothers?

Why is love silent?

And suddenly a sudden thought, like lightning, flashed in Zasulich’s mind: “Oh, me myself! Everything about Bogolyubov has become quiet, silent, I need a cry, there will be enough air in my chest to make this cry, I will let it out and make him hear it!” Determination was the answer to this thought at that very moment. Now it was possible to talk about the time, about the methods of execution, but the matter itself, completed on January 24, was irrevocably decided.

Days and even weeks passed between the flashing and emerging thought and its execution; this gave the prosecution the right to recognize the intention and action imputed to Zasulich as premeditated.

If this deliberation is attributed to the preparation of means, to the choice of methods and time of execution, then, of course, the prosecution’s view cannot but be considered fair, but in its essence, at its core, Zasulich’s intention was not and could not be a cold-blooded, deliberate intention, no matter how great in time, the distance between determination and execution. The decision was and remained sudden, as a result of a sudden thought that fell on favorable soil prepared for it, which took possession of the exalted nature completely and omnipotently. Intentions like Zasulich’s, arising in an excited, emotional soul, cannot be thought through or discussed. A thought immediately takes possession of a person; it does not submit to his discussion, but subordinates him to itself and drags him along with it. No matter how far away the fulfillment of the thought that has taken possession of the soul may be, the affect does not turn into cold reflection and remains affect. Thought is not tested, not discussed, it is served, it is slavishly obeyed, it is followed. There is no critical attitude, only unconditional worship. Here only the details of execution are discussed and thought through, but this does not concern the essence of the decision. Whether a thought should or should not be fulfilled is not discussed, no matter how long one thinks about the means and methods of execution. The passionate state of mind in which thought is conceived and perceived does not allow such discussion; Thus, the poet’s inspired thought remains inspired, not fictitious, although she may think about the choice of words and rhymes for its embodiment.

The thought of a crime that would become a clear and loud indication of reprisals against Bogolyubov completely took possession of Zasulich’s excited mind. It could not have been otherwise: this thought could not have been more consistent with those needs and answered the tasks that worried her.

The prosecution puts revenge as the guiding motive for Zasulich. Zasulich herself explained her act as revenge, but it seems impossible for me to completely explain Zasulich’s case by the motivation of revenge, at least revenge understood in the limited sense of the word. It seems to me that the word “revenge” was used in Zasulich’s testimony, and then in the indictment, as the simplest, shortest term and somewhat suitable for designating the motivation, the impulse that guided Zasulich.

But revenge, “revenge” alone, would be the wrong criterion for discussing the inner side of Zasulich’s act. Revenge is usually driven by personal scores with the person avenging himself or his loved ones. But not only was there no personal, exclusively her, interest for Zasulich in the incident with Bogolyubov, but Bogolyubov himself was not a close or familiar person to her.

Revenge seeks to inflict as much harm on the enemy as possible; Zasulich, who shot Adjutant General Trepov, admits that she was indifferent to one or another consequences of the shot. Finally, revenge tries to achieve satisfaction at the cheapest possible price; revenge acts secretly, with the smallest possible sacrifices. In Zasulich’s act, no matter how one discusses it, one cannot help but see the most selfless, but also the most reckless self-sacrifice. This way they don’t sacrifice themselves just for the sake of narrow, selfish revenge. Of course, Zasulich did not have a feeling of goodwill towards Adjutant General Trepov; of course, she had a certain kind of discontent against him, and this discontent took place in Zasulich’s motives, but her revenge was least of all interested in the person being avenged; her revenge was colored, modified, complicated by other motives.

The question of the justice and legality of Bogolyubov’s punishment seemed to Zasulich not resolved, but buried forever - it was necessary to resurrect it and raise it firmly and loudly. Bogolyubov’s humiliated and insulted human dignity seemed unrestored, unwashed, unjustified, the feeling of revenge unsatisfied. The possibility of repetition in the future of cases of shameful punishment of political criminals and prisoners seemed unforeseen.

All these needs, it seemed to Zasulich, had to be satisfied by a crime that could with complete certainty be connected with the case of Bogolyubov’s punishment and show that this crime arose as a consequence of the incident on July 13, as a protest against the outrage against the human dignity of a political criminal. To stand up for the idea of ​​moral honor and dignity of a political convict, to proclaim this idea loudly enough and to call for its recognition and assurance—these were the motives that guided Zasulich, and the thought of a crime that would be connected with Bogolyubov’s punishment seemed to can give satisfaction to all these impulses. Zasulich decided to seek a trial for her own crime in order to raise and provoke a discussion of the forgotten case of the punishment of Bogolyubov.

When I commit a crime, thought Zasulich, then the silenced question of Bogolyubov’s punishment will arise; my crime will cause a public trial, and Russia, in the person of its representatives, will be forced to pronounce a verdict not on me alone, but, due to the importance of the case, pronounce it in view of Europe, that Europe that still likes to call us a barbaric state, in which the attribute of government is the whip.

These discussions determined Zasulich's intentions. Therefore, Zasulich’s explanation seems completely reliable, which, moreover, was given by her during her very initial interrogation and was then invariably supported, which made no difference to her: whether the consequence of the shot she fired would be death or only a wound. I will add from myself that for her purposes it would be equally indifferent if the shot, obviously aimed at a known person, did not produce any harmful effect at all, if there was a misfire or miss. It was not the life, not the physical suffering of Adjutant General Trepov that was needed for Zasulich, but the appearance of herself in the dock, and with her the emergence of the question of the case with Bogolyubov.

It made no difference whether the intention to kill or to wound existed together; Zasulich did not give any special advantage to the intention to kill. She acted in this direction. She did nothing to ensure that the shot had the inevitable consequence of death. She didn't care about the more dangerous direction of the shot. And, of course, being at the distance from Adjutant General Trepov that she was at, she really could have shot completely point-blank and chosen the most dangerous direction. Taking the revolver out of her pocket, she pointed it as she had to: without choosing, without calculating, without even raising her hand. She shot, admittedly, at a very close range, but she could not have acted any other way. Adjutant General Trepov was surrounded by his retinue, and a shot at a greater distance could threaten others, whom Zasulich did not want to harm. Shooting completely to the side was not at all appropriate: it would reduce the drama that Zasulich needed to the level of comedy.

When asked whether Zasulich had the intention to cause death or had the intention to cause only a wound, the prosecutor went into particular detail. I listened carefully to the arguments that he expressed, but I cannot agree with them, and they all fall before consideration of the goal that V. Zasulich had. After all, they do not deny that it was the disclosure of the case with Bogolyubov that was the motivating reason for the crime for V. Zasulich. With this point of view, we can be rather indifferent to the circumstances that attracted the attention of Mr. Prosecutor, for example, that the revolver was chosen from the most dangerous. I do not think that the greatest danger is meant here; a revolver was chosen that was more convenient to use. put it in your pocket: it would be impossible to take a large one, because it would stick out of your pocket; it was necessary to take a smaller revolver. How he acted - more dangerously or less dangerously, what consequences could have occurred from the shot - this was completely indifferent to Zasulich. The revolver was exchanged without Zasulich's knowledge. But even if we assume, as the prosecutor admits it is possible to assume, that the first revolver belonged to V. Zasulich, then again the change in the revolver can be explained very simply: the previous revolver was of such a size that it could not fit in a pocket.

I also cannot agree with the very witty assumption that Zasulich did not shoot in the chest and head of Adjutant General Trepov, being en face to him, only because she felt some embarrassment, and that only after she had recovered somewhat, she found you have enough strength to fire a shot. I think that she simply did not shoot Adjutant General Trepov in the chest because she did not care about a more dangerous shot: she shoots when she already has to leave, when she can no longer wait.

A shot rang out... No longer continuing the work she was doing, completely content with what had been achieved, Zasulich herself threw down the revolver before they had time to grab her, and, stepping aside, without struggle or resistance, she surrendered to the power of Major Kurneev, who attacked her, and remained not strangled by him only thanks to the help of others around her. Her song was now sung, her thought fulfilled, her deed accomplished.

I must dwell on the testimony of Adjutant General Trepov read here. This testimony says that after the first shot, Zasulich, as General Trepov noted, wanted to fire a second shot, and that a struggle began: the revolver was taken from her. This completely erroneous testimony of Adjutant General Trepov is explained by the very understandable excited state in which he was. All witnesses, although also excited by the incident, but not to the same extent as Adjutant General Trepov, testified that Zasulich completely voluntarily, without any struggle , threw down the revolver herself and showed no intention of continuing the shots. If Adjutant General Trepov imagined anything resembling a fight, then it was the fight that Kurneev waged with Zasulich and was waged by other witnesses who were supposed to tear off Kurneev, who was clinging to Zasulich.

I think that in view of the duality of Zasulich’s intentions, in view of the fact that for her intentions the consequence of greater or lesser importance was indifferent, that nothing was undertaken by her to achieve a greater result, that death was only allowed, and was not the exclusive desire of V-Zasulich , - there is no reason to classify the shot she fired as attempted murder. Her action must be determined by the consequence which is produced in connection with the special intention which the consequence had in view.

The intent was either to cause death or to injure; no death followed, but a wound was inflicted. There is no reason to see in this inflicted wound the implementation of an intention to cause death, to equate this infliction of a wound with an attempted murder, and it would be quite fair to consider it nothing more than an actual infliction of a wound and the implementation of an intention to inflict such a wound. Thus, discarding the attempted murder as not carried out, one should focus on the actually proven result, corresponding to the special conditional intention - inflicting a wound.

If Zasulich must bear responsibility for her act, then this responsibility would be fairer for the evil that actually followed, and not for the evil that was not assumed as a necessary and exceptional result, as a direct and unconditional desire, but was only allowed.

However, all this is just my desire to present to you considerations that will not be able to help you resolve the issues that lie ahead for you; For Zasulich’s personal feelings and desires, it makes no difference, no matter how the question of the legal nature of her actions is resolved; it makes no difference to her to be buried under one or another article of the law. When she crossed the threshold of the mayor's house with the decisive intention of resolving the thought that tormented her, she knew and understood that she was sacrificing everything - her freedom, the remnants of her broken life, all the little that her stepmother fate had given her.

And not to bargain with representatives of public conscience for this or that reduction of her guilt, she appeared before you today, gentlemen of the jury.

She was and remained a selfless slave of the idea in whose name she raised her bloody weapon.

She came to lay down before us all the burden of her painful soul, to open the sorrowful page of her life, to honestly and frankly set forth everything that she had experienced, changed her mind, felt, what moved her to commit a crime, what she expected from him.

Gentlemen of the jury! This is not the first time in this bench of crimes and severe mental suffering that a woman has appeared before the court of public conscience on charges of a bloody crime.

There were women here who took revenge on their seducers by death; there were women who stained their hands with the blood of their loved ones who betrayed them or their happier rivals. These women came out of here justified. It was a right court, a response from the divine court, which looks not only at the external side of actions, but also at their internal meaning, at the actual criminality of a person. Those women, committing a bloody massacre,... fought and avenged themselves.

For the first time, a woman appears here for whom there were no personal interests or personal revenge in the crime - a woman who connected with her crime the struggle for an idea, in the name of the one who was only her brother in the misfortune of her entire young life. If this motive for the offense turns out to be less heavy on the scales of social truth, if for the good of the common, for the triumph of the law, for the public it is necessary to call for legal punishment, then - may your punitive justice be done! Don't overthink it!

Not much suffering can add to your sentence for this broken, shattered life. Without reproach, without bitter complaint, without resentment, she will accept your decision from you and will be consoled by the fact that, perhaps, her suffering, her sacrifice, prevented the possibility of a repetition of the incident that caused her action. No matter how gloomy one looks at this act, one cannot help but see an honest and noble impulse in its very motives.

Yes, she can leave here condemned, but she will not come out disgraced, and one can only wish that the reasons that produce such crimes, that give rise to such criminals, do not repeat themselves.

Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako (April 25, 1842, Troitsk - January 5, 1909, Moscow) - the most famous lawyer in pre-revolutionary Russia, jurist, judicial speaker, and actual state councilor. He acted as a defense attorney in many high-profile political and civil trials.

Possessing a lively mind, truly Russian ingenuity and eloquence, he won legal victories over his opponents. In the legal community, he was even nicknamed “Moscow Chrysostom.” There is a selection of the most concise and vivid court speeches of a lawyer, which do not contain complex and confusing judicial terms. If you develop your oratory skills, structure and rhetorical techniques F.N. Plevako can help you with this.

Lawyer F.N. Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

- What time is on your watch, Your Excellency?

The chairman looked and replied:

- At my fifteen minutes past ten.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

“It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.”

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense. The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was actually 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?— The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was time for the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

— Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

— Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to the unfair reproaches and irritated nagging of his grumpy woman for 15 years over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause. The man was acquitted.

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place. His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them himself. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. Sitting in front of you is a man who gave you thirty years of freedom "Confess your sins. Now he expects from you: will you forgive him his sin?"

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then logically you must justify the revolutionaries too. The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: “Russia had to endure many troubles, many trials for more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented it, the Polovtsy, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon it, took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from the trials. But now ... An old woman stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this, it will perish irrevocably..."

The old woman was acquitted.

In addition to the story about the famous lawyer Plevako. He defends a man who has been accused of rape by a prostitute and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff claims that the defendant took her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako. "Gentlemen of the jury,"- he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "It's not true! I took off my shoes!!!"

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

To the great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. One day, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the bell for mass with special precision. The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed:

— If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

The present case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky District Court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of the premeditated murder of his children’s former tutor, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky’s wife, E.F. Schmidt. The preliminary investigation established the following. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife end all relations as a tutor, he very quickly became close to his wife, with the tutor, and he himself was fired, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of the property belonging to her. Having settled in the estate allocated to her, she invited E.F. to join her as her manager. Schmidt. After the partition, Gruzinsky’s two children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children; the children were told a lot of incriminating things about Gruzinsky. As a result, being constantly in a tense nervous state during meetings with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky killed Schmidt during one of these meetings, shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the prince’s feelings at the time of the crime, his relationship with his wife, and his love for his children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the “clerk from the store”, about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow: “A tenderly loving father and husband wants to see his family.”

“It was then that the prince, who had not yet left his bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - the sick are so sensitive - in the next room the conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they, apparently, are arguing; but their quarrel is so strange: as if they were scolding their own people, and not strangers, then again the speeches are peaceful..., uncomfortable... The prince gets up, gathers his strength..., walks when no one expected him, when they thought that he was chained to the bed... And so. , not good together... The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those caught fled, not even thinking of sending help to the sick man. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak... He only accepted misfortune in an open heart, so that it would never happen to him not to know separation."

Plevako claims that he would not yet have dared to accuse the princess and Schmidt, to condemn them to the prince’s sacrifice, if they had left, had not boasted of their love, had not insulted him, had not extorted money from him, what is this "It would be a hypocrisy of words." The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here something irreparable happens. “Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that the children’s underwear is in the princess’s house where he lives, rejects the demand with an oath and sends an answer that without 300 rubles as a deposit he will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for the children. The hanger-on, the hired lover, comes between the father and children and dares to call him a man who is capable of wasting children's underwear, takes care of children and demands a deposit of 300 rubles from the father. Not only the father to whom this is said, but the stranger who hears about this, his hair stands on end!"

The next morning the prince saw children in wrinkled shirts. “Father’s heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes and - which fatherly love will not do - went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and went ... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, for a shirt for his children.” . At night, according to witnesses, Schmidt loaded the guns. The prince had a pistol with him, but this was a habit, not an intention. "I affirm- said Plevako, - that an ambush awaits him there. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought." He goes to Schmidt. “Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach it. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of the scoundrel. Here it is - a place where not only was their present taken away from him, they also took away his past happiness, poisoning him with suspicions... God forbid to experience such moments! In such a mood, he drives, approaches the house, knocks on the door. They don’t let him in. The footman speaks about the order not to accept. The prince conveys that he doesn’t need anything except linen. But instead of fulfilling his legal demand, instead Finally, a polite refusal, he hears abuse, abuse from the lips of his wife's lover, directed at him, who does not do any insult on his part. You have heard about this abuse: “Let the scoundrel leave, don’t you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I'll shoot." The prince's whole being was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so impudently. The prince could know that he was armed from his family, who heard from Tsybulin. But the prince could not know that he was capable of anything evil. do not believe". He shoots. "But listen, gentlemen,- says the defender, - was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment." "The prince could not cope with these feelings. They're too legal. The husband sees a man ready to desecrate the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy - and, besides them, there is no one to save the law and the shrine. What rises in their souls is not a vicious feeling of malice, but a righteous feeling of vengeance and defense of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy; “If it doesn’t rise, they are despicable people, pimps, blasphemers!”

Concluding his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the power of the oppression over him of the soul-disturbing pictures of his family misfortune, you admitted that he cannot be charged with the accusation brought against him, and his defender is all around to blame for his insufficient ability to fulfill the task he has taken on...”

The jury returned a not guilty verdict, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

Another time, a wealthy Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. But not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

- Just win the case for me. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

- What pleasure?

“Win the case, you’ll see.”

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at about ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up, let’s go.

-Where to this early?

- Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant came to pick me up. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. And the time is not right for these things. We drove down some side streets. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We arrived at some warehouse. A little man is standing at the gate. Either a watchman or a team worker. They got off. Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

- That's right, your lordship.

- Lead...

Let's walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves. The merchant sent the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat and offered to take it off for me. I undress. The merchant came to the corner, took two hefty clubs, gave one of them to me and said:

- Start.

- What should we start with?

- Like what? Break the dishes!

- Why beat her?

The merchant smiled.

- Start, you will understand why...

The merchant approached the shelves and with one blow broke a bunch of dishes. I hit too. Broke it too. We began to break the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to smash the dishes with such fury with a club that I’m ashamed to even remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild but acute pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I broke everything down to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

- Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I received it."

Thank you for your attention!

The collection includes speeches by famous Russian lawyers who left a significant mark on the history of judicial eloquence. Any of them testifies to the extraordinary intelligence, comprehensive education and polemical skill of each of the speakers presented.
The book contains brief biographical sketches about each of the defenders, necessary historical notes and practical examples of court appearances by domestic lawyers. In a number of published speeches one can find interesting discussions about the role of the defense attorney in the process, techniques and methods of defense, methods of preparing and delivering a judicial speech, etc.
For lawyers, prosecutors, as well as for everyone who seeks to master the skills and culture of public speaking, who will be interested in wonderful examples of oratory and issues of the history of the national court.

CASE OF THE MURDER OF MARIA DRITCH.
Gentlemen of the jury! The difficulty of the task that lies ahead of you lies mainly in the fact that this task is completely new to you. For the first time, as you know, the jury is sitting in Lucin, and at the very first meeting you have to judge the case of the Jews Lotsov, Gurevich and Maykh, accused of the murder of Maria Drich. Any work that you do for the first time, gentlemen, is always difficult, and judicial work is especially difficult. The prosecutor told you that since you listened carefully, there is no doubt that you can solve the case absolutely correctly. Of course, I have no doubt at all that you have fulfilled the duties that have hitherto rested on you, that you have fulfilled them consciously. But can attention alone replace what is given by experience, skill, habit? Hardly! In any case, it is our duty, the duty of the parties, to help you. But I find that the indictment did not clarify, but, on the contrary, obscured the matter, introduced into it a lot of unnecessary, unverified and even simply incorrect. All this needs to be sorted out. That is why I think that I, who the law gives the right to present considerations in defense of the defendants - without defense there can be no trial - I have a considerable job to do, because the difficulty of the task that you have to solve is not so much to analyze complex evidence against the defendants - no, but to know what is called proven in court and what is called unproven, what doubt is and what confidence is. All this, of course, will be best explained to you by the chairman in his closing remarks.

He will tell you that when in doubt, in conscience, you cannot say about a person: yes, he is guilty. When you get used to a court case over the course of several years, you will be less trusting of the prosecutor’s speech that you listened to than now. Now it may seem to you that the prosecutor, as a person in authority, is telling you the truth that is binding on you, even when he decides to assure you that the entire Jewish population of the city of Lucina has gathered for a meeting to kill the Christian maid. But I must tell you that you are not obliged to take the word of the prosecutor, because your conviction must be based on evidence, and not on words alone. I will try to prove to you how deeply the prosecutor is mistaken and how many positive mistakes he has made. Then I will have the right to expect that you will reject his arguments and, having discussed the matter alone with your conscience, straightforwardly and boldly, without pleasing anyone and without fearing anyone, you will say the decisive word. And the more the prosecutor’s speech exceeded the limits set by the law, the more, of course, the defense should protect the interests of the defendants.

Download the e-book for free in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Judicial speeches of famous Russian lawyers, Collection, Reznik G.M., 2011 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

• Civil law, Guidelines, Astashkin R.S., 2019
• Tax disputes, Problems, analysis, solution, Karakhanyan S.G., Batalova I.S., 2008
• Introduction to the system of mathematical education in Russia, Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation”, Lebedeva S.V., 2014

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako is one of the most famous Russian lawyers. His contemporaries nicknamed him “Moscow Chrysostom.”

Interesting to know presents to your attention the best speeches of the speaker.

"20 minutes"

One day, on the eve of some religious holiday, the owner of a small shop closed trade 20 minutes later, breaking the law.

The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. However, Plevako was not there. The chairman of the court ordered to find a lawyer. About 10 minutes later, Plevako, slowly, entered the hall. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late.

Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

- What time is on your watch, Your Excellency? The chairman looked and replied:

- At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

“It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.”

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was really 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch.

So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

"15 years of unfair reproach"

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

- Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause.

The man was acquitted.

"Absolution of Sins"

Once Plevako defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place. His speech was brief:

“Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: will you forgive him his sin?”

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

30 kopecks

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation.

“But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you acquit this grandmother, then logically you must acquit the revolutionaries.”.

The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech.

“Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials over its more than thousand-year existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now... The old lady stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably..."

The old woman was acquitted.

I took off my shoes!

Once Plevako defended a man whom a prostitute accused of rape and tried to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff alleged that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man stated that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako.

"Gentlemen of the jury,"- he declares. — “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "Not true! I took off my shoes!”

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

"The Omen"

Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the gospel for mass with special accuracy.

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F. N. Plevako exclaimed: “If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!”

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

Get started!

From the memories of Plevako... Once a rich Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says:

“I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. And not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

- Just win the case for me. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

- What pleasure?

“Win the case, you’ll see.”

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at about ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up, let’s go.

-Where to this early?

- Look, you'll see.

- Sunday has come. The merchant came to pick me up. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. And the time is not right for these things. We drove down some side streets. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We arrived at some warehouse. A little man is standing at the gate. Either a watchman or a team worker. They got off.

Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

- That's right, your lordship.

We walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves.