Annotation

The article examines the admissibility of using a contradictory (alternative) defense position in criminal proceedings. The author critically analyzes the established requirement that the defense position must be unequivocal and internally consistent, emphasizing that such a requirement is not expressly provided for in procedural legislation and may hinder the accused’s right to defense. The paper substantiates the thesis that objective truth is unattainable in criminal justice and, consequently, that the defense counsel’s knowledge is inherently probabilistic in nature. In this context, alternative and even mutually contradictory arguments are considered a legitimate and necessary instrument of legal defense. The author concludes that the use of an alternative defense position does not violate the law and should be regarded as a normal professional practice contributing to the administration of fair justice.