Judge Kotkov and the secret of the deliberation room: the sentence of the convict for the murder of Alyona Popova can be canceled

"Gross violation"

Judge of the Tuapse District Court, Sergei Kotkov, could have violated the confidentiality of the deliberation room when sentencing Alyona Popova, who was found guilty of the murder of her friend Anastasia Muzheni. This is stated in the decision of the Krasnodar Regional Court, which examined the criminal case materials and appeals of the convicted person.

“The court found that the appeals of the lawyers Desyatova, O.S. and Desyatova, L.V., acting in defense of the interests of the convict Popova A.S., along with arguments about innocence of Popova A.S., contain information on violation of the secret of the deliberation room Judge S. Kotkov, in particular, that on December 9, 2019, the presiding judge retired to the deliberation room to pronounce the verdict, and on December 10, 2019, he also participated in the consideration of case No. 2-208 / 2019 - M-2315/2018 at the suit of Trofimenko I.A. to Sheikhalov I.B. and ruled to withdraw interim measures, as evidenced by information from the official courtroom, ”- stated in the decision (RT has this).

The court decided to return the criminal case materials to a lower court and instructed the chairman of the Tuapse District Court to conduct an internal audit against Kotkov.

As RT lawyer Olga Desyatova explained to RT, Kotkov passed a sentence in the Popova case for three days - it was announced on December 12.

“According to the law, a judge can simultaneously conduct as many cases as you like, but at the same time he can not do anything outside when he is in the deliberation room,” Desyatova notes.

According to the interlocutor, earlier in the Tuapse court this violation was not recognized.

“Kotkov replied to our complaint that he had no other case in the proceedings and that he couldn’t make any decisions,” said the lawyer.

Frequent violation

Lawyers explain that because of such a violation, the sentence must be quashed.

“The judge’s consideration of third-party materials while in the deliberation room is the basis for the annulment of the sentence,” lawyer Sergey Badamshin commented on RT.

At the same time, as experts say, a higher court could independently annul the sentence.

“The appellate court must make its own decision taking into account violations,” said lawyer Vladimir Zherebyonkov in an interview with RT. - In this case, cancel the sentence and send the case back for a new trial. Recently, however, courts have often covered lower courts because it worsens statistics. ”

Moreover, according to the lawyer Sergei Zhorin, even if the judge violates the confidentiality of the deliberation room, this does not affect the final decision on the merits of the criminal case.

“Unfortunately, a violation of the confidentiality of the deliberation room is a fairly common procedural violation that does not affect the outcome of the review of the case,” Zhorin explains.

The secret of killing

The mysterious murder of 20-year-old Anastasia Muzheni on a wild rocky beach near the village of Novomikhailovsky near Tuapse occurred in August 2017. Her body was found by visitors to the beach under the canopy of a ruined tourist tent. The only suspect was her friend Alena Popova, with whom they rested in Tuapse. On December 12, 2019, Popova was found guilty of the murder of Muzheni and sentenced to eight years in prison.

On the night when the murder occurred, the girls quarreled, and Popova, according to her, left for a ride home to Pyatigorsk. Husband was left on a deserted beach alone.

Usually one of the key evidence in murder cases is the time of death, but neither the investigation nor the court could establish it.

According to law enforcers, during the conflict, Popova inflicted a stupid head injury on her friend with an unknown subject, from which she died between 01:00 and 02:30. However, forensic examiners in the case did not give a definite answer, suitable for the version of the investigation. At the same time, during the judicial investigation, the defense proved that, according to the examinations and conclusions available in the case file, Muzhenya died no earlier than 09:30, when Popova was already at the entrance to Pyatigorsk.

In addition, the investigation did not check the alibi of local residents who were witnesses in the case - some of them knew where the girls' tent was. Also, there was no analysis of the phone billing of those who were on the beach at night.

According to Olga Desyatova, the investigation made procedural errors in the seizure of a number of important evidence in the case, during the detention of Popova and her interrogations. For example, pants on which “brown spots” were found and which became one of the main evidence, after examinations became unsuitable for re-analysis.

Records from CCTV cameras at the exit from the wild beach were seized only for the period of time when Alena Popova came in and returned - as a result, the investigation did not find out if anyone could visit the beach after Popova left.

The investigation received widespread publicity, and the Popova case was discussed on the air of federal television channels. All key witnesses, relatives of both girls, lawyers and experts took part in the programs. In social networks, communities began to appear dedicated to the secret of the murder of a girl on the beach and mixed evidence of Popova’s guilt.

In April 2019, 21-year-old Vladimir Cherkasov confessed to the murder of Anastasia Muzhen on the broadcast of the “Actually” Channel One broadcast. The police interviewed him and sent the materials to Tuapse, but no one else questioned him and did not summon him to court.

Throughout the investigation and trial, Popova denied the charge. The girl told RT that she considered the verdict to be biased, and the investigation was biased. According to Popova, the court took advantage of the closed nature of the process and the fact that the materials of the criminal case cannot be fully covered in the media.

They did not comment on the investigation in the UK, citing the fact that investigator Philippe Shevrikuko forgot his circumstances and for this reason cannot answer RT's questions. According to a source close to the investigation, the prosecutor admitted during the debate in court that all the evidence against the girl was indirect.