The defense challenged the prosecutor, citing the fact that he was directly involved in the collection of evidence and the formation of the accusatory position and, in fact, combines several procedurally incompatible roles, the material says.
“How can a person who has been collecting evidence for years and forming an indictment case impartially evaluate it as a prosecutor?” – noted representatives of the defense.
The lawyers indicated that part of the evidence that the court is now examining was obtained with the participation of Samoilenko, and he himself can be questioned about the circumstances of the pre-trial investigation, in particular the legality of certain procedural actions and the formation of the evidence base. The defense questioned the legality of his inclusion in the group of prosecutors.
According to Karpovets, the court rejected the application for recusal without immediately announcing the reasons for the decision. Subsequently, on April 13, the defense filed four more challenges on additional grounds, including due to the possible interrogation of Samoilenko as a witness, but the court again refused.
The blog notes that such a situation may indicate a potential conflict of interest and calls into question the lack of involvement of the prosecution, undermining confidence in the judicial process.
