Sign up for a consultation
Leave your contacts and we will call you back
Your name
Your phone
Question category
Write your question or situation
By clicking the button you consent to the processing of personal data
PRACTICE
Drug case
Situation: At the court hearing, the prosecutor considered the request to extend the preventive measure in the form of detention of the perpetrator for 60 days.

Actions of an attorney: Prior to the meeting, attorney requests were submitted to government agencies, businesses, utilities, and medical facilities to obtain characterization documents against the defendant, the court case materials were reviewed, and the prosecutor's petition was investigated.

Having examined the prosecutor's petition, evidence has been gathered to refute the arguments set forth in the prosecutor's petition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result:The court took into account the evidence of the defense and dismissed the prosecutor's petition, assigning a milder preventive measure not involving detention.


1. Drug case
Situation: At the court hearing, the prosecutor considered the request to extend the preventive measure in the form of detention of the perpetrator for 60 days.

Actions of an attorney: Prior to the meeting, attorney requests were submitted to government agencies, businesses, utilities, and medical facilities to obtain characterization documents against the defendant, the court case materials were reviewed, and the prosecutor's petition was investigated.

Having examined the prosecutor's petition, evidence has been gathered to refute the arguments set forth in the prosecutor's petition.

----------------------------------

Result:The court took into account the evidence of the defense and dismissed the prosecutor's petition, assigning a milder preventive measure not involving detention.
Case of seizure of property
Situation: The property of the suspect, temporarily seized during the search of his premises and car, was seized by order of the investigating judge. The defense was not summoned for consideration of this petition.

Lawyer's actions: In accordance with the CPC of Ukraine, the owner of the property, his representative or defender who has not been summoned to the court session for consideration of the motion for seizure of property has the right to file a petition to the court to cancel the seizure of property.

Having familiarized himself with the petition for seizure of property, the lawyer filed a petition for cancellation of seizure from the property, justifying his position by the fact that the prosecution when filing and considering the petition for seizure of property had not added a resolution to recognize the property seized during the search as material evidence, moreover, the Article does not provide for confiscation of property.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result: The examining magistrate, after reviewing the complaint and the lawyer's evidence, made a decision to release the property.
2. Case of seizure of property
Situation: The property of the suspect, temporarily seized during the search of his premises and car, was seized by order of the investigating judge. The defense was not summoned for consideration of this petition.

Lawyer's actions: In accordance with the CPC of Ukraine, the owner of the property, his representative or defender who has not been summoned to the court session for consideration of the motion for seizure of property has the right to file a petition to the court to cancel the seizure of property.

Having familiarized himself with the petition for seizure of property, the lawyer filed a petition for cancellation of seizure from the property, justifying his position by the fact that the prosecution when filing and considering the petition for seizure of property had not added a resolution to recognize the property seized during the search as material evidence, moreover, the Article does not provide for confiscation of property.
----------------------------------

Result: The examining magistrate, after reviewing the complaint and the lawyer's evidence, made a decision to release the property.
A case of extortion, threats, violence, and home invasion.
Situation: The relevant case has been heard before the judge for three years, the number of defendants in the case is three.

Lawyer's actions: During this time, the defense conducted expert examinations, questioned witnesses in court sessions, prepared transcripts of court sessions, which gave an opportunity to compare the testimony of witnesses of victims, defendants and to refute the disagreements and inaccuracies.

Also the lawyer filed a motion to court to recognize the secret investigative actions as inadmissible, because the latter were opened and attached to the materials of the criminal proceeding after two years of familiarization with the materials of the criminal proceeding within the framework of art.290 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. 290 of the CPC of Ukraine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result: With the help of the defense strategy, preliminary consultations and preparations for the trial with the clients, the court decided to find 1 person and 2 not guilty of the criminal offenses they were charged with, while 3 persons were found guilty and sentenced to 3 years of probation.

A case of extortion, threats, violence, and home invasion.
Situation: The relevant case has been heard before the judge for three years, the number of defendants in the case is three.

Lawyer's actions: During this time, the defense conducted expert examinations, questioned witnesses in court sessions, prepared transcripts of court sessions, which gave an opportunity to compare the testimony of witnesses of victims, defendants and to refute the disagreements and inaccuracies.

Also the lawyer filed a motion to court to recognize the secret investigative actions as inadmissible, because the latter were opened and attached to the materials of the criminal proceeding after two years of familiarization with the materials of the criminal proceeding within the framework of art.290 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. 290 of the CPC of Ukraine.

----------------------------------

Result: With the help of the defense strategy, preliminary consultations and preparations for the trial with the clients, the court decided to find 1 person and 2 not guilty of the criminal offenses they were charged with, while 3 persons were found guilty and sentenced to 3 years of probation.
Case of providing an undue advantage to an official in conjunction with extortion
Situation: The principal was accused of extortion and bribery of a public official.

Actions of the attorney: In the court of first instance the attorney conducted a comprehensive work to analyze the materials of criminal proceedings, collected all necessary evidence, conducted a number of investigative experiments, interrogations in the court session. However, the judge of Shevchenko district court made an illegal and unreasonable decision to find a person guilty of this criminal offense.

The lawyer has drawn up and filed an appeal against the decision. During 6 months of active consideration of the complaint, the court decided to re-examine witnesses and the accused, to investigate the counter-appeal of the prosecution.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Result: The Court of Appeal decided to reverse the decision of the Shevchenko district court to find the person not guilty of the alleged criminal offenses.

Case of providing an undue advantage to an official in conjunction with extortion
Situation: The principal was accused of extortion and bribery of a public official.

Actions of the attorney: In the court of first instance the attorney conducted a comprehensive work to analyze the materials of criminal proceedings, collected all necessary evidence, conducted a number of investigative experiments, interrogations in the court session. However, the judge of Shevchenko district court made an illegal and unreasonable decision to find a person guilty of this criminal offense.

The lawyer has drawn up and filed an appeal against the decision. During 6 months of active consideration of the complaint, the court decided to re-examine witnesses and the accused, to investigate the counter-appeal of the prosecution.

----------------------------------

Result: The Court of Appeal decided to reverse the decision of the Shevchenko district court to find the person not guilty of the alleged criminal offenses.

Do you need legal advice?
Leave a request and a specialist will contact you!

By clicking on the button you agree to the processing of personal data
Law office
Alexander Berries
01054, Kyiv, O. Honchara str., Building 65A
yahodkagroup@gmail.com