Annotation

The problem of assessing circumstantial evidence occupies a central place in the modern model of Russian criminal procedure. In law enforcement practice, circumstantial evidence is no longer perceived as auxiliary, secondary material, but rather as an independent mechanism for establishing factual circumstances, allowing inquirers, investigators, and the court to reach a well-founded conclusion even in the absence of direct evidence. However, the expansion of the evidentiary role of circumstantial evidence has raised a number of new questions for law enforcement: where is the line drawn between logical inference and assumption? What should be the standard of sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in substantiating a guilty verdict? How is a court obligated to justify its conviction in a guilty verdict based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution? The author of this article notes that when forming a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence, a number of problems of both a scientific, theoretical, and practical nature become acute, affecting the effectiveness of proof. This necessitates a systematic solution through the proposed amendments to criminal procedure legislation.