At trial

The case has gone to court. This is the last chance to argue the facts.

A Russian appeal court can re-examine evidence, but in practice it rarely does. The trial is where witnesses are cross-examined, expert reports are challenged and the version of events is fixed. Everything after that is an argument about a record someone else wrote.

Full study of the case file and an independent reconstruction of the timeline
Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and challenge of expert evidence
Motions to exclude evidence obtained in breach of procedure
Instruction of independent experts where the state examination is unsound
Argument on classification — the difference between two articles is often years
Mitigation built and documented before sentencing, not improvised at the end

How a Russian criminal trial actually runs

Most criminal cases are heard by a single professional judge in a district court. Serious cases can be heard by a panel of three judges, and a narrow category of the gravest offences may be heard by a jury if the defendant asks for it. There is no plea bargaining in the American sense, but there is a "special procedure" — a shortened hearing where the defendant agrees with the charge in exchange for a sentence capped below the statutory maximum. It looks attractive and it is frequently the wrong choice, because it forfeits the right to challenge the facts on appeal.

The prosecution presents its evidence first, then the defence. The judge is active: they question witnesses directly and control the pace. Hearings are often spread over weeks with gaps between sessions, which means a trial can run for months without anything visible happening.

The first-instance hearing is the last stage where facts can still be established. After it, only law can be argued.

Acquittals are rare — and that shapes the strategy

We are not going to tell a family what they want to hear. Full acquittals in Russian criminal courts are in the low single digits of a percent. Any lawyer who promises one is selling something.

What is achievable, and what we work towards, is more specific: reclassification of the charge to a lesser article, exclusion of the episodes that are not proven, a finding of a smaller quantity or a smaller loss, a sentence below the lower limit under Article 64 of the Criminal Code, a suspended sentence under Article 73, or termination of the case on non-rehabilitating grounds. In real terms the difference between a well-run and a badly-run trial is usually measured in years of a person's life, not in the difference between guilty and not guilty.

Classification is where the leverage is

The same physical act can fall under different articles and different parts of the same article, and the gap between them is enormous. Possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to supply are different worlds. A commercial dispute framed as fraud carries a prison term; framed correctly as a civil matter it carries none. Grievous bodily harm resulting in death and murder are separated by what the accused intended, which is almost always inferred rather than proved directly.

Attacking the classification is unglamorous work: it means going through the file line by line, matching each element of the offence against the actual evidence, and finding the places where the investigator assumed rather than established. It is also where most of the results in our practice come from.

Expert evidence

In drug cases, fraud cases and violent cases the expert report often decides the outcome — the substance analysis, the accounting valuation, the forensic medical report. State expert institutions produce these, and their conclusions are treated with considerable deference.

They are still challengeable. The chain of custody of the sample, the methodology used, whether the expert answered questions outside their competence, whether the defence was given the chance to put its own questions before the examination began — all of these are grounds. Where the state report is unsound we instruct an independent specialist and put the two before the court.

What happens to a foreign national after sentencing

A custodial sentence is served in Russia. On release, a foreign national convicted of a criminal offence will normally face administrative removal and a re-entry ban, and that decision is separate from the criminal case.

Russia is a party to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, and transfers to serve the remainder of a sentence in the country of nationality are possible where a treaty relationship exists. The process is slow, requires the consent of both states, and is decided administratively rather than by the trial court. We will tell you at the outset whether it is realistic in a particular case; it is not something to promise a family in advance.

Frequently asked

Should we agree to the "special procedure" to get a shorter sentence?

Sometimes, and only after the file has been read. The cap on the sentence is real, but the price is that you accept the charge as written and lose the ability to dispute the facts on appeal. If the classification is wrong — and it often is — you have traded a year off the sentence for the years that a successful reclassification would have saved.

Can we choose a jury?

Only for a narrow list of the most serious offences, and only if the defendant applies for it. Jury acquittal rates are far higher than judge-alone rates, which is why the decision deserves serious analysis in any case where it is available. It also carries risks — a jury cannot be appealed against on the facts.

Will the family be allowed into the courtroom?

Criminal hearings are public as a rule, so yes, in most cases relatives can attend. Closed hearings happen in cases involving state secrets, sexual offences and minors. Bring identification; courts check it.

How long will the trial take?

A straightforward single-episode case can be finished in two to four months. A multi-episode economic or drug case commonly takes a year or more. Sessions are scheduled with gaps, and delays caused by witness non-attendance are routine.