Case Witte

Problem 1

At the stage of filing unmotivated challenges to juror candidates, the victim’s representative expressed a desire to participate in this procedure, since he has unmotivated challenges to some juror candidates. The presiding officer explained that he has the right to file unmotivated challenges through the state prosecutor, who needs to transfer the relevant information, after which the prosecutor will remove the jury indicated by the victim´s representative from the list.
Does the presiding officer’s explanation comply with the criminal procedure law? What rights do the victim and his representative have at the jury selection stage?

Problem 2

After satisfying the self-recusations of the juror candidates, the presiding judge invited the parties to begin questioning the remaining juror candidates in order to clarify the grounds for their challenge. The defense attorney approached the juror candidates sitting in the courtroom and began asking them questions, but was interrupted by the presiding judge. The judge explained to the defense attorney that each party has the right to ask questions to the jury only through the presiding judge, having submitted these questions to him in writing.
Does the presiding officer’s explanation comply with the criminal procedure law? What rights do the parties have at the stage of questioning juror candidates?

Problem 3

Concluding his testimony at the trial, defendant Artyukhov, addressing the jury, stated the following: “Gentlemen of the jury! I am a harmless person and have never offended anyone in my life... They are slandering me in vain, the whole accusation is falsified. In addition, I am disabled, as you can see, I am missing two fingers on each hand... How could I commit murder by strangulation with such hands?” Immediately after this statement by the defendant, having achieved the removal of the jurors from the courtroom, the prosecutor filed a motion to have information about Artyukhov’s previous convictions, as well as convictions in these cases, read out in the presence of the jurors. From these sentences it followed that the defendant had previously been convicted twice of murder by strangulation, both murders being committed during the period when Artyukhov already had the indicated injury to his hands.
Is the prosecutor´s request to be granted? To what extent is it permissible to study data about the identity of the defendant at the stage of judicial investigation in a jury trial?