In modern criminal proceedings, the institution of jurors occupies a special place, being an important element of the democratization of justice and ensuring the principle of citizen participation in the administration of justice. The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Jurors" and the regulatory resolutions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan determine the procedure for their participation, rights and obligations, as well as the specifics of considering criminal cases with their participation.

One of the key features of such proceedings is the separation of functions between the judge and the jurors. The judge acts as the presiding officer, ensuring compliance with procedural law, explaining to participants their rights and obligations, and guiding the course of the court session. Jurors, in turn, decide questions of fact – that is, they determine: whether the crime event took place, whether its commission by the defendant is proven, and whether the defendant is guilty.

This distinction is of fundamental importance. The judge is not entitled to influence the internal conviction of the jurors, and the latter do not participate in resolving legal issues, such as the qualification of the act. This ensures a balance between a professional legal approach and public perception of fairness.

Special attention is paid to the formation of the jury panel. According to the law, selection is made from among citizens included in the candidate lists, observing the principles of randomness and equality. Mechanisms are provided for challenging candidates by both the prosecution and the defense. This allows for the formation of an impartial panel.

Another important feature is the specificity of the judicial hearing. The process takes into account the need to present information accessibly to jurors who do not have a legal education. The judge is obliged to ensure that the evidence presented is understandable, and that the parties – prosecution and defense – present their positions clearly and logically. Regulatory Resolution No. 4 of the Supreme Court dated August 23, 2012 "On the practice of application by courts of legislation regulating proceedings in criminal cases with the participation of jurors" emphasizes the need to prevent pressure on jurors and the use of inadmissible evidence.

A significant stage is the judicial inquiry, during which evidence is examined. Jurors have the right to ask questions through the presiding judge, which contributes to a fuller perception of the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the judge must reject questions that are irrelevant to the case or could affect the objectivity of the review.

After the completion of the judicial arguments and the defendant's last word, one of the most critical stages begins – the formulation of questions for the jurors. The judge formulates the questions so that they are clear, specific, and do not allow for ambiguous interpretation. The legality and validity of the verdict largely depend on the correctness of the wording of the questions.

The jurors retire to the deliberation room, where they make a decision – the verdict. The law requires that the discussion take place in complete secrecy, without any outside interference. Jurors render a verdict by majority vote, answering the questions posed by the court. Their decision is binding on the court regarding the establishment of factual circumstances.

It should be emphasized that an acquittal verdict by the jurors is an unconditional basis for issuing an acquittal judgment. In the case of a guilty verdict, the judge independently decides on the qualification of the crime, and the sentence is imposed taking into account the opinion of the jurors.

An equally important feature is ensuring the independence of jurors. The law prohibits any influence on them, including threats, bribery, or other forms of pressure. Criminal liability is provided for violating these requirements. The court, in turn, is obliged to create conditions that exclude the possibility of external influence.

Practice shows that the participation of jurors helps to increase citizens' trust in the judicial system. Society perceives such decisions as fairer because they are made not only by professional judges but also by representatives of the people.

At the same time, this institution also has certain difficulties. These include an increase in the duration of the trial, the need for additional organizational measures, and increased demands on the professionalism of the judge, who must not only strictly comply with the law but also be able to interact competently with the jurors.

Thus, the consideration of criminal cases with the participation of jurors represents a complex but important mechanism for administering justice. It ensures the implementation of the principles of transparency, adversarial process, and fairness, and also contributes to the strengthening of the rule of law.

Zhanna NYGYBAYEVA,
Judge of the Specialized Interdistrict
Criminal Court of Pavlodar Region