Brief court speeches by F.N. Plevako

Independent in his judgments, bold in his views, Andreevsky set the condition for giving him the right in his speech to give a public assessment of Trepov's act and his personality. Naturally, the tsarist justice did not agree to such a demand by Andreevsky. After consideration of the case, V. Zasulich Andreevsky was dismissed.

In connection with Andreevsky's departure from the prosecutor's office, A.F. Koni wrote to him on June 16, 1878: "Dear Sergei Arkadievich .... do not lose heart, my dear friend, and do not lose heart. I am firmly convinced that your position will soon be determined and it will be brilliant. It will give you freedom and security - it will give you the absence of consciousness of offensive subordination to all sorts of insignificant personalities. I am even glad for you that fate is pushing you on the road of a free profession in time. Why didn’t she do this to me 10 years ago ?"

Soon A.F. Koni found him a position as a legal adviser in one of the St. Petersburg banks. In the same 1878, Andreevsky joined the bar.

Already the first trial, in which Andreevsky spoke (a speech in defense of Zaitsev, accused of the murder), created a reputation for him as a strong criminal lawyer. The speech in the case of Sarah Becker in defense of Mironovich brought him a reputation as one of the brilliant orators in criminal cases and wide popularity outside of Russia.

His defense methods were different from those of Alexandrov. He was not distinguished by a deep comprehensive analysis of the case materials, did not pay enough attention to the conclusions of the preliminary investigation (defensive speech in the Mironovich case is an exception).

At the heart of Andreevsky's speeches, you almost never find a thorough analysis of the evidence, a sharp polemic with the prosecutor; rarely did he subject the materials of the preliminary and judicial investigation to a deep and detailed analysis; always put forward the identity of the defendant, the conditions of his life, the internal "springs" of the crime as the basis of speech.

"Do not build your decision on the proof of his act," he said in one case, defending the defendant, "but look into his soul and into what inevitably caused the defendant to his course of action."

Andreevsky skillfully used beautiful comparisons. To implement the defense, he often used sharp comparisons both to refute the arguments of the prosecution and to substantiate his conclusions. In his speeches, he almost did not touch on major socio-political problems. In the fight against evidence material, he was not always on top, sometimes allowing "protection for the sake of protection." He widely preached in his speeches the ideas of humanity and philanthropy. They focused on the personality of the defendant, on the environment in which he lived, and the conditions in which the defendant committed the crime. Andreevsky always gave a psychological analysis of the defendant's actions in a deep, lively, vivid and convincing manner. Without exaggeration, he can be called a master of psychological defense.

Carrying out defense in complex cases built on circumstantial evidence, he chose only the most convenient points for defense, however, he always gave them a thorough analysis.

In cases where not only consistency and infallible logic were required, but also strict legal thinking, the study of legislative material, he, as a lawyer, was not up to par, and success betrayed him. As a court orator, S. A. Andreevsky was original, independent, his oratorical work is colored by a bright personality.

The main feature of him as a court speaker is the wide introduction of literary and artistic techniques in his defense speech. Considering advocacy as an art, he called the defender "a talking writer." "...Criminal defense, first of all, is not scientific specialty, but an art that is just as independent and creative as all other arts, i.e., literature, painting, music, etc. ...

In complex processes, with insidious and seductive evidence, only an artist who is sensitive, understands life, can correctly understand witnesses and explain true facts is able to achieve the truth. living conditions incidents" (S. A. Andreevsky, Dramas of Life, Defensive Speeches, fifth revised edition, Petrograd, 1916, pp. 4--5.).

In the same work, noting the role of the psychological disclosure of the inner world of the defendant, Andreevsky said: "Fiction, with its great disclosure of the human soul, should have become the main teacher of criminal lawyers."

Noting the need to introduce techniques into criminal defense fiction, he wrote: “Having become a judicial orator, having touched the “dramas of real life” at the jury trial, I felt that both I and the jurors, we perceive these dramas, including here the witness-defendant and the everyday morality of the trial, completely in spirit and direction of our literature. And I decided to speak to the jury, as our writers speak to the public. I found that the simple, deep, sincere and truthful methods of our literature in assessing life should be transferred to the court. "

He not only expressed these views on the defense in the press, but practically put it into practice in court.

His contemporaries said that Andreevsky's style is simple, clear, although somewhat pompous. Andreevsky was a very strong orator with a wealth of vocabulary and extensive litigation experience. His speeches are harmonious, smooth, full of vivid, memorable images, but his passion for psychological analysis often prevented him from giving a deep analysis of the evidence, which in a number of cases greatly weakened his speech.

S. A. Andreevsky studied and literary activity. Many poems and poems belong to his pen. lyrical themes. Since the beginning of the 1980s, he has been published in Vestnik Evropy. In the book " Literary reading"(1881) published his literary, prose and journalistic works - a number of critical articles about Baratynsky, Nekrasov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Garshin.

Andreevsky's judicial speeches were published as a separate book, withstood five editions. This collection includes Andreevsky's speeches, in which the characteristics his talent.

Case Andreeva 1

1 It was considered by the St. Petersburg District Court in 1907.

Gentlemen of the jury!

The murder of a wife or mistress, just like the murder of a husband or lover, with tin, the deprivation of the life of the closest being in the world, each time raises before us the deepest questions of spiritual life. We have to study comprehensively him and her. You need to comprehend both and tell the real truth about them, considering that they did not understand each other, because always and everywhere "an alien soul is darkness" .. And in marriage, where, it would seem, a husband and wife have one body is general rule confirmed very often.

By the way, there is hardly another couple, so comfortable in appearance and so disunited inside, as Andreev and Zinaida Nikolaevna.

Let's see how their fate intertwined.

Let's start with the husband.

Andreev entered his first marriage in the twenty-third year. The marriage was quiet, without much enthusiasm. The girl was from a good family, three years younger than Andreev. The couple lived together. Andreev remained a faithful husband in the most precise sense of the word. He did not look for diversity in women, did not like and did not even understand. He was from the breed of "monolove". This went on for over ten years. Only in the thirty-fifth year did Andreev face a temptation in the person of Sarah Levina. Against his will, he was drugged. A "second youth" began to speak in him, if you like, because the first had passed unnoticed. This fatal feeling captures a sober and incorrigible person much deeper and more fully, “if the first, natural attraction to a woman. everyone knows, but I have never experienced "...

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako (April 25, 1842, Troitsk - January 5, 1909, Moscow) - the most famous lawyer in pre-revolutionary Russia, a lawyer, a court speaker, a real state councilor. He acted as a defender at many high-profile political and civil processes.

Possessing a lively mind, truly Russian ingenuity and eloquence, he won judicial victories over his opponents. In the legal environment, he was even nicknamed "Moscow Chrysostom". There is a selection of the most concise and vivid court speeches by a lawyer, in which there are no complex and confusing court terms. If you develop your oratory skills, structure and rhetorical techniques of F.N. Plevako can help you with this.

Very well known is the defense by the lawyer F.N. religious holiday. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was there, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. After 10 minutes, Plevako, slowly, entered the hall, calmly sat down at the place of protection and opened the briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

“And how much is on your watch, Your Excellency?”

The chairman looked and replied:

— At my fifteen minutes past ten.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- And on your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, obviously wishing to cause trouble for the defense counsel, replied with a sly smile:

“It's already twenty-five past ten on my watch.

He could not know what kind of trap Plevako set up for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense. The trial ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked that the defendant be found guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was indeed 20 minutes late. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and does not know much about watches. We are literate and intelligent people. How are you doing with your watch? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, the chairman has 15 minutes, and the prosecutor's clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most faithful watch. So my watch was 20 minutes behind, which is why I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch very accurate, because I have gold, Moser. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor's clock, opened the session 15 minutes late, and the defense counsel appeared 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate saleswoman have better hours and better understand the time than the prosecutor and I? The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Once, Plevako got a case about the murder of his woman by one man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident in success, and without any papers and cribs. And so, when the turn came to the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Plevako again:

— Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here in the hall swept the discontented rumble of the long-awaited long-awaited spectacle of the people. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here already the hall exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable public. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something incredible has begun. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, urging the people to calm down.

— Well, gentlemen, you could not stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. And what was it like for this unfortunate peasant to listen for 15 years to unfair reproaches and the irritated itch of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The hall froze, then burst into enthusiastic applause. The man was acquitted.

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant had nothing to count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako got up from his seat. His speech was short: "Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them himself. What is there to argue about? confess your sins. Now he is waiting for you: will you forgive him his sin?"

There is no need to specify that the priest was acquitted.

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the hard life of the client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even stressed that the criminal causes pity, not resentment. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then you and the revolutionaries should logically be justified. The jurors nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: "Russia had to endure many troubles, many trials for more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, Tatars, Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon her, took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from trials. But now ... The old woman stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Of course, Russia will not be able to withstand this, it will die forever from this ... "

The old woman was acquitted.

In addition to the story about the famous lawyer Plevako. He defends a man whom a prostitute has accused of rape and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury. Facts of the case: the plaintiff alleges that the defendant lured her into a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was in good agreement. The last word for Plevako. "Gentlemen of the jury," he says. "If you award my client a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes."

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "That's not true! I took off my shoes!!!"

Laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

The great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with the frequent use of the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. One day, speaking in the provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin the evangelization for mass with special precision. The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed:

— If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a verdict of not guilty.

The present case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky district court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of premeditated murder of the former tutor of his children, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky's wife, E.F. Schmidt. The preliminary investigation established the following. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife stop all relations as a tutor, very quickly becomes close to his wife, with the tutor, and fired him himself, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of her property. Having settled in the estate allotted to her, she invited E.F. Schmidt. After the partition, two of Gruzinsky's children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children, children were told a lot of compromising things about Gruzinsky. Being therefore constantly in a tense nervous state when meeting with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky during one of these meetings killed Schmidt by shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the feelings of the prince at the time of the crime, on his relationship with his wife, on love for children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the "clerk from the store", about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow: "Tenderly loving father, husband wants to see a family."

"It was then that the prince, who had not yet left the bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - the sick are so sensitive - in next room a conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they seem to be perverting themselves; but their quarrel is so strange: it’s as if they are scolding their own, and not strangers, then again peaceful speeches ... uncomfortable ... The prince gets up, gathers his strength ..., goes when no one expected him, when they thought that he was bedridden ... And what. Darlings scold - only amuse themselves: Schmidt and the princess are together, it’s not good together ... The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those who were caught fled, not even guessing to send help to the sick man. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak ... He only accepted misfortune in an open heart, so that he would never know separation from him.

Plevako claims that he would not have dared to blame the princess and Schmidt, doom them to the prince’s sacrifice, if they left, did not boast of their love, did not insult him, did not extort money from him, what is it "It would be a hypocrisy of the word." The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here the unthinkable happens. "Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that children's underwear is in the princess's house, where he lives, rejects the demand with a curse and sends an answer that without 300 rubles. The pledge will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for children. A hanger-on, a hired lover becomes between his father and children, and dares to call him a man capable of wasting children's underwear, takes care of the children, and demands a 300 ruble deposit from the father.

The next morning, the prince saw children in crumpled shirts. "My father's heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes and - which father's love will not do - went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and drove off ... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, shirts for his children " . Schmidt, according to witnesses, loaded the guns at night. The prince had a gun, but it was a habit, not an intention. "I affirm- said Plevako, - that an ambush awaits him. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought. He goes to Schmidt. "Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach him. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, and his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of the swindler. Here it is - a place where not only was his present taken away, his past happiness was taken away, poisoning him with suspicions ... God forbid to experience such moments! In such a mood he rides, goes up to the house, knocks on the door. They do not let him in. The footman speaks of the order not to receive. The prince conveys that he does not need anything except linen. But instead of fulfilling his finally, a polite refusal, he hears scolding, scolding from the lips of his wife's lover, directed at him, who does not do any insult on his part. You have heard about this abuse: "Let the scoundrel leave, don't you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I'll shoot." The whole being of the prince was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so brazenly. The fact that he was armed, the prince could know from his family, who had heard from Tsybulin. And the fact that he was capable of all evil - the prince could not do not believe". He shoots. "But, listen, gentlemen, the defender says - was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment. "" The prince could not cope with these feelings. They are too legal. The husband sees a man ready to defile the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy, and, apart from them, there is no one to save the right and the sacred. It is not a vicious feeling of malice that rises in their souls, but a righteous sense of revenge and protection of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy; don’t get up, they are despicable people, panders, sacrilegious!”

Finishing his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the strength of the oppression over him of the soul-infuriating pictures of his family misfortune, you would admit that he cannot be imputed to the charge that is being brought up, and his defender is all around to blame for the insufficient ability to fulfill the task he has taken on ... "

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

Another time a wealthy Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would break such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. And he was not only not surprised, but also said:

- You just win my case. I'll pay what you said, and I'll give you pleasure.

- What is the pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at ten o'clock in the morning, I'll pick you up, let's go.

"Where to at this early?"

- Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant followed me. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. Yes, this is not the right time for this. Let's go down some lanes. around residential buildings no, just barns and warehouses. We drove up to a warehouse. A man is standing at the gate. Not a watchman, not an artel worker. Got down. Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

"That's right, your lordship."

- Lead...

Let's go to the yard. The little man opened a door. Came in, look and do not understand anything. A huge room, on the walls of the shelves, on the shelves of dishes. The merchant escorted the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat, and offered to take it off for me. I undress. The merchant went to a corner, took two hefty clubs, gave me one of them and said:

- Start.

— Yes, what to start?

- Like what? Dishes to beat!

Why hit her?

The merchant smiled.

“Get started, you’ll understand why…

The merchant went up to the shelves and broke a bunch of dishes with one blow. I hit too. Also broke. We began to beat the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to break the dishes with a club with such fury that I’m even ashamed to remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild, but spicy pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I smashed everything to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

- Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I did."

Thank you for your attention!

The collection includes speeches by famous Russian lawyers who left a significant mark on the history of judicial eloquence. Any of them testifies to the extraordinary mind, comprehensive education and polemical art of each of the presented speakers.
The book contains brief biographical sketches of each of the defenders, the necessary historical notes and practical examples court appearances of domestic lawyers. In a number of published speeches, one can find interesting discussions about the role of the defense counsel in the process, the techniques and methods of defense, the methodology for preparing and delivering a court speech, etc.
For lawyers, prosecutors, as well as for anyone who seeks to master the skills and culture public speaking who will be interested in wonderful samples oratory and questions of the history of the domestic court.

THE CASE OF THE MURDER OF MARIA DRICH.
Gentlemen of the jury! The difficulty of the work that lies ahead of you lies mainly in the fact that this work is completely new to you. For the first time, as you know, the jury sits in Lyutsin, and in the very first session you have to judge the case of the Jews Lotsovs, Gurevich and Maikh, who are accused of the murder of Maria Drich. Every work that you do for the first time is always difficult, gentlemen, and judicial work is especially difficult. The prosecutor told you that since you listened carefully, there is no doubt that you can decide the case quite correctly. Of course, I have no doubt at all that you have fulfilled the duties that have hitherto been incumbent on you, that you have fulfilled them consciously. But can attention alone replace what is given by experience, skill, habit? Hardly! In any case, it is our duty, the duty of the parties to help you. But I find that the accusatory speech did not clarify, but, on the contrary, obscured the case, introduced into it a lot of superfluous, unverified and even simply incorrect. All this needs to be disassembled. That is why I think that I, to whom the law gives the right to present arguments in defense of the defendants - there can be no trial without a defense - a considerable job lies with me, because the difficulty of the task that you have to solve lies not so much in to disassemble the evidence that is complex against the defendants - no, but in knowing what is called proven in court and what is called unproved, what is doubt and what is certainty. All this, of course, will be best explained to you by the chairman in his concluding remarks.

He will tell you that in case of doubt, according to conscience, it is impossible to say about a person: yes, he is guilty. After a few years you get used to court case, you will treat the speech of the prosecutor, which you listened to, less trustingly than now. Now it may seem to you that the prosecutor, as a person invested with authority, is telling you the truth that is binding on you, even when he dares to assure you that the entire Jewish population of the city of Lucina gathered for a meeting to kill the Christian maid. But I must tell you that you are not obliged to believe the prosecutor's word, because your conviction must be based on evidence, and not on mere words. I will try to prove to you how deeply mistaken the prosecutor is and how many positive mistakes he made. Then I will have the right to expect that you will reject his arguments and, discussing the matter alone with your conscience, frankly and boldly, not pleasing anyone and not fearing anyone, will say the decisive word. And the more the speech of the accuser went beyond the limits that the law assigns to it, the more, it goes without saying, the defense should protect the interests of the defendants.

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Judicial speeches of famous Russian lawyers, Collection, Reznik G.M., 2011 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

• Civil law, Guidelines, Astashkin R.S., 2019
• Tax disputes, Problems, analysis, solution, Karakhanyan S.G., Batalova I.S., 2008
• Introduction to the system of mathematical education in Russia, Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation", Lebedeva S.V., 2014

JUDICIAL SPEECHES OF FAMOUS RUSSIAN LAWYERS

Third edition, revised State publishing house of LEGAL LITERATURE MOSCOW - 1958

I. Aleksandrov Petr Akimovich

Alexandrov Pyotr Akimovich (1838-1893) is one of the most prominent representatives of Russian pre-revolutionary judicial eloquence, although he consciously never prepared himself for advocacy, precisely for the type of activity where his talent was most manifested. In the words of his contemporaries, "fate prepared for him a brilliant career" in the bureaucratic field of legal institutions, and only his unwillingness to subordinate his will to the strict commands of others prevented his "triumphant ascent through the ranks."

P. A. Alexandrov was born in the Oryol province in the family of a minor clergyman. The inconspicuous post of the father did not provide sufficient material resources for the normal existence of the family. The Alexandrov family often suffered hardships and hardships. All this, as well as Pyotr Akimovich's observations of the life around him, left a heavy imprint on his mindset and way of thinking. L. D. Lyakhovetsky recalled that Aleksandrov "... he liked to talk about the unattractive conditions of his past life, which led him to thoughts of a sad nature. Sad was the life of his parents, who suffered a lot from the arbitrariness of the strong! In childhood, the boy was a witness to the desecration of the human dignity of his father, who dutifully endured all the insults that fell on his head. These impressions sunk deep into the soul of the child "(L. D. Lyakhovetsky, Characteristics of famous Russian judicial orators, St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 5.). These impressions, however, not only sunk into his soul, but were preserved for the whole Independence of judgments and views, inflexibility of character, firmness in convictions, brought up by a harsh life and hindering his consistent ascent in the official field, served him well as a barrister in the ranks of Russian lawyers.

P.A. Alexandrov graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University in 1860, after which he held various positions in the Ministry of Justice for 15 years: assistant prosecutor of the Petersburg District Court, prosecutor of the Pskov District Court, assistant prosecutor of the Petersburg Court of Justice, and, finally, assistant chief prosecutor Cassation Department of the Governing Senate. In 1876, Aleksandrov, after an official conflict caused by the disapproval of his superiors in court in one of the cases where he spoke in defense of freedom of the press, retired and entered the bar the same year.

As a defender Alexandrov drew attention to himself by his speech in the well-known political trial of the "193s". The case was heard in 1877-78. Petersburg District Court closed doors. Participated as defenders in the process best forces Petersburg Advocacy.

Responding to the tactless trick of the accuser Zhelekhovsky. stating that almost a hundred defendants acquitted in this case were brought in by him to "form a backdrop" to the rest of the defendants, Aleksandrov in his speech "threatened Zhelekhovsky with offspring who would nail his name to the pillory with a nail ... and a sharp nail!" (A. F. Koni, Selected Works, Gosjurizdat, 1956, p. 532.).

Prior to this, Alexandrov, little known as a lawyer, attracted the attention of the public with a well-thought-out speech and a skillful, convincing polemic with the prosecutor.

Evaluating his speech at the 193 trial, one of the participants in the trial wrote: “The final words of his exemplary speech amid the friendly and coordinated chorus of voices of an excellent defense sounded nevertheless the purest and most high notes. Whoever heard this speech will never forget it."

Soon, following this case, the case was heard in the St. Petersburg District Court on the charge of Vera Zasulich of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor Trepov. The speech delivered by Alexandrov in defense of Vera Zasulich brought him wide fame not only in Russia, but also abroad.

“The defendant,” recalls L. D. Lyakhovetsky about Aleksandrov’s speech in the case of Vera Zasulich, “chosen P. A. Aleksandrov as her defender. an obscure lawyer was elected, a former official who had left the service.

A whisper of amazement rang out in the courtroom when, on the day of the trial, the figure of Alexandrov approached the defender's bench. "Is it really him?...".

P. A. Alexandrov seemed like a pygmy who took up the work of a giant. He will perish, he will disgrace himself and ruin the cause. So many thought and said, almost all. Contrary to expectations, his speech immediately revealed a colossal, powerful, fighting talent. The unknown defender of the officials left the court famous, with the seal of glory. His speech, reproduced the next day in the newspapers, made his name known to all reading Russia. Talent received universal recognition. Yesterday's pygmy suddenly turned into a giant. One speech created a high-profile reputation for this man, exalted him, revealing the full power of his talent "(L. D. Lyakhovetsky, op. in the book of selected works by A. F. Koni (Gosyuriadat, 1956), published in this Collection.).

However, it would be wrong to think that this speech. brought fame to P.A. Alexandrov due to its external effects. On the contrary, it is characterized by moderation of tones and the absence of excessive colors. In this speech, P.A. Alexandrov brilliantly showed that it was not Zasulich’s premeditated intention that was the driving motive for the crime committed, but the whole set of lawless and misconduct General Trepov - the mayor of St. Petersburg - is the real reason deed. Alexandrov showed with great force in a speech in the case of Vera Zasulich that in reality it was not she who should occupy the dock, but, on the contrary, the one who took the sympathetic role of the victim in the process should actually go through the case as an accused. P. A. Alexandrov’s speech in this case, undoubtedly, to a large extent prepared the jury’s verdict of not guilty. In high bureaucratic and government circles, it was received with exceptional disapproval. This, however, could not shake Alexandrov as a courageous and steadfast court orator in his convictions.

The oratorical talent of Pyotr Akimovich manifested itself with no less force in his speech on the case of Sarah Modebadze.

Protecting four completely innocent people, understanding the great public response that this process had, and his role in this matter, he gave a defensive speech a great public sound. Ov correctly assessed the social roots and nutritional environment of this dirty, shameful deed, boldly raised his voice in defense of the innocent, sacrificed to reactionary ideas pursuing the goal of inciting national hatred.

P. A. Alexandrov studied the material related to the case under consideration, showed subtle knowledge special issues, examined in court, successfully refuted the conclusions of the examination, on which the charge was based.

Alexandrov understood that the broad advanced layers of Russia were listening to his voice. He boldly revealed the atmosphere in which this case was created. At the beginning of his speech, Alexandrov says that the real trial "... all of Russia wants to know, it will be judged by the Russian public opinion". Alexandrov emphasize that the speech is intended not only for the court, but also for those "who will desecrate the verdict with impudent slander if it is against their dirty desires, for those who want to look for technical motives in it, on the level of which he himself will never did not rise ... for those who wish to know the truth of the present case without a prejudiced look, for those who wish to look in it for grounds for criticizing the old prejudice, the prejudice of the superstitious and feeding tribal strife.

In this process, Alexandrov acted as a speaker who had earned himself a great and well-deserved authority - as a defender who was deeply interested and worried about the social roots of this case. In this deeply meaningful speech, he was interested not only in the evidence, but also in the social atmosphere that gave rise to a grave accusation and undeserved persecution of innocent people.

Having analyzed the corpus delicti, having carefully analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecutor, he skillfully showed the groundlessness of the prosecutor's arguments.

Having finished a detailed analysis of the evidence, he, in an effort to emphasize once again public importance of this process, having carefully worked out his main conclusion, he said about the case under consideration: “It will remind the Russian people of justice, which is all that is needed so that such sad deeds do not repeat. The present case will also say its instructive word to our public figures who hold our honor and freedom. It will tell the Russian investigators that they should not get carried away popular superstition but to dominate it ... it will tell the Russian prosecutors that they are dear and kind to society, not only as guardians of society from criminal encroachments, but especially as guardians of it from unfounded suspicions and false accusations.

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako is one of the most famous Russian lawyers. Contemporaries called him "Moscow Chrysostom".

Interesting to know brings to your attention best speeches speaker.

"20 minutes"

Once, on the eve of some religious holiday, the owner of a small shop closed the trade 20 minutes later than she violated the law.

The court session in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. However, Plevako was not there. The presiding judge ordered that a lawyer be found. After 10 minutes, Plevako, slowly, entered the hall. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late.

Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

“And how much is on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:

— At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- And on your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, obviously wishing to cause trouble for the defense counsel, replied with a sly smile:

“It's already twenty-five past ten on my watch.

He could not know what kind of trap Plevako set up for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The trial ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked that the defendant be found guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was indeed 20 minutes late. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and does not know much about watches. We are literate and intelligent people. How are you doing with your watch? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, the chairman has 15 minutes, and the prosecutor's clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most faithful watch. So my watch was 20 minutes behind, which is why I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch very accurate, because I have gold, Moser.

So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor's clock, opened the session 15 minutes late, and the defense counsel appeared 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate saleswoman have better hours and better understand the time than the prosecutor and I?

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

"15 years of unfair reproach"

Once, Plevako got a case about the murder of his woman by one man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers and cribs. And so, when the turn came to the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here in the hall swept the discontented rumble of the long-awaited long-awaited spectacle of the people. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here already the hall exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable public. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something incredible has begun. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, urging the people to calm down.

- Well, gentlemen, you could not stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. And what was it like for this unfortunate peasant to listen for 15 years to unfair reproaches and the irritated itch of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The hall froze, then burst into admiring applause.

The man was acquitted.

"Remission of Sins"

Once Plevako defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant had nothing to count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako got up from his seat. His speech was short:

"Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right about everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them himself. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. Before you sits a man who for thirty years has forgiven you for your confession of your sins. Now he is waiting for you: will you forgive him his sin?

There is no need to specify that the priest was acquitted.

30 kopecks

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the hard life of the client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even stressed that the criminal causes pity, not resentment.

“But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then you and the revolutionaries should logically be justified”.

The jurors nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech.

“Many troubles, many trials had to endure Russia for more than a thousand years of existence. Pechenegs tormented her, Polovtsy, Tatars, Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon her, they took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from trials. But now... The old woman stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, will not withstand this, it will perish irrevocably from this ... "

The old woman was acquitted.

I took off my shoes!

Once Plevako defended a man whom a prostitute accused of rape and tried to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury. Facts of the case: the plaintiff alleged that the defendant lured her into a hotel room and raped her there. The man said that everything was in good agreement. The last word for Plevako.

"Gentlemen of the jury," he says. — “If you award my client a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "Not true! I took off my shoes!”

Laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

"The Omen"

Plevako is credited with the frequent use of the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. One day, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin the evangelization for mass with special precision.

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: “If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about that!”

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a verdict of not guilty.

Get started!

From the memoirs of Plevako… Once a wealthy Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says:

“I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would break such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. And he not only was not surprised, but also said:

- You just win my case. I'll pay what you said, and I'll give you pleasure.

- What is the pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at ten o'clock in the morning, I'll pick you up, let's go.

"Where to at this early?"

- Look, you'll see.

- It's Sunday. The merchant followed me. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. Yes, this is not the right time for this. Let's go down some lanes. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We drove up to a warehouse. A man is standing at the gate. Not a watchman, not an artel worker. Got down.

Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

"That's right, your lordship."

I'm going to the yard. The little man opened a door. Came in, look and do not understand anything. A huge room, on the walls of the shelves, on the shelves of dishes.