Prosecutor at the stage of preparation for court proceedings in criminal cases in the Russian Empire after the judicial reform of 1864

The article analyzes the normative regulation and practical activity of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Empire at the stage of preparation for court proceedings in criminal cases after the judicial reform of 1864. The implementation by the prosecutor of the powers granted to him at this stage was influencing the further course of the criminal process. On all issues that arose in preparation for the trial, the Prosecutor’s office gave its conclusions, without which the court had no right to make its decisions. In comparison with the defendants and other persons involved in the case, the Prosecutor’s office had advantages in questions of calling witnesses and experts to court. The Prosecutor made the list of persons who were subject to a summons to court and later had the right to additionally call new witnesses. At the same time, the Prosecutor was not obliged to indicate, for clarification of what circumstances he called new witnesses. And the court had no right to refuse to the Prosecutor to call the persons indicated by him. In contrast to this, the rights of the party of the defense were limited to a 7-day period for filing requests to call additional witnesses and the obligation to indicate the circumstances for which new witnesses were called. But the court could refuse to theparty of the defense to satisfy such petitions. The Prosecutor’s office took part in the decision of questions on the challenge of judges. On this issue, the Prosecutor gave his conclusion. In addition, he had the right to challenge the judges. However, the persons involved in the case did not have the right to challenge the Prosecutor from participation in the case. If there were grounds, the Prosecutor should recuse himself from participation in the case. The Prosecutor’s office had certain powers to influence the practice of holding closed court sessions. It gave her conclusion on the consideration of cases in closed or open court sessions, and also appealed against the decisions of the courts, which did not agree with the proposals of the Prosecutor’s office. Prosecutors proposed that the court conduct closed trials on their own initiative or on the instructions of the Minister of justice.Keywords: Prosecutor’s office, court, defendant, publicity, the challenge of the judge, witness, judicial reform of 1864.