Author:
Iurkevich Mariia Aleksandrovna
Abstract
This article reviews most controversial issues pertaining to legal, organizational and actual possibility of using 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author analyzes the approach adopted in the US legal system towards application of video models of evidence in judicial proceedings, distinguishing between the main forms of 3D video models that exist in the US criminal procedure. Leaning on the analysis of particular judicial precedents and normative acts that regulate the questions of criminal proceedings in the United States, the author outlines the conditions (rules) for admissibility of 3D evidence. Applicable to the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation, the article formulates the legal framework for using video modeling in criminal proceedings, as well as gives a general description to the system of criminal procedural guarantees that ensure the rights of the individual in the context of using video modeling, and accuracy of information acquired from such evidence. The research employs the general philosophical method of materialistic dialectics, methods of analysis, synthesis, legal experiment, and comparative legal method. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the author is one of the first to explore the question of using the results of video modeling in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation. The analysis of the US law enforcement experience on the subject matter is of particular relevance due to accumulation of the vast practical experience in adapting video modeling technology to the needs of criminal justice of the XXI century. The doctrine of the national criminal procedure had not previously to determine the role of 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author's conclusions on the need to use the results of video modeling, including immersive reality, not only in expert activity, but also in criminal procedure (for example, in the course of hearing of arguments) are aimed at the transformation of criminal proceedings with regards to its optimization via digitalization.
Reference20 articles.
1. Yurkevich M.A. Tsifrovoe ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo: kakoi protsess nas zhdet v blizhaishem budushchem, i o chem nel'zya zabyvat' v pogone za vseobshchei didzhitalizatsiei // Voprosy rossiiskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2020. Tom 10. № 5A. S. 54-61. DOI: 10.34670/AR.2020.98.24.007.
2. Yurkevich M.A. Vybirat' li v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve uchastie v sudebnom zasedanii posredstvom videokonferents-svyazi vzamen lichnogo uchastiya? // Pravo i politika. – 2021. – № 1. – S. 12-22. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2021.1.34835 URL: https:// nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=34835
3. ELIZABETH C. WIGGINS. The Courtroom of the Future is Here: Introduction to Emerging Technologies in the Legal System // LAW & POLICY, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 2006, P. 183.
4. Dunn, Meghan A., Peter Salovey, and Neal Feigenson (2006) “The Jury Persuaded (and Not): Computer Animation in the Courtroom” Law & Policy 28: P. 228.
5. People v. Cauley, 32 P.3d 602, 606-07 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).