Andrei Vyshinsky biography. Stalin's prosecutor. Did Andrei Vyshinsky not approve of political repression? Minister for the Cold War

Prosecutors of two eras. Andrey Vyshinsky and Roman Rudenko Zvyagintsev Alexander Grigorievich

Chapter Three Stalin's Prosecutor

Chapter Three

Stalin's prosecutor

Ivan Alekseevich Akulov served as prosecutor of the USSR until March 1935. He enjoyed constant sympathy among his subordinates. Here is what former employee of the Union Prosecutor's Office N.A. Orlov wrote about him: “Akulov was, in the full sense of the word, a charming person, a man of a broad Russian soul. Loved life and nature. When going on vacation, he loved to travel, learn and show others new, beautiful places, was a keen connoisseur of art, and loved and understood music. At home he was the ideal of a family man, an unusually loving father. He valued friendship highly, knew how to make friends and was a loyal, reliable friend.”

Apparently, Stalin did not like these qualities of his. And although Akulov, like other people at the top of power, blindly fulfilled all the demands of the leader (even those contrary to the law), he understood that this was not the kind of person needed as the prosecutor of the USSR. The intelligent and gentle Akulov was clearly not suitable for the role of organizer of mass repressions.

By the resolution of the USSR Central Executive Committee of March 3, 1935 (signed by M. Kalinin and I. Unshlikht), I. A. Akulov was approved as secretary of the Central Executive Committee and relieved of his previous duties.

A. Ya. Vyshinsky was appointed as the new prosecutor of the Union, who managed to helpfully and resignedly fulfill the role of the “chief inquisitor” of the leader. His Menshevik past was forgotten. During the four years that Vyshinsky served as Prosecutor of the USSR, he managed to completely take over all the key positions of legal science and practice. Former Prosecutor of the RSFSR A. A. Volin, in a conversation with the authors, said that at that time “the voice of only one person was heard everywhere - Vyshinsky.”

The orders and instructions of the new Prosecutor of the USSR, which had previously not been distinguished by softness, now sounded more firmly and harshly, especially when it came to the implementation of all kinds of decisions of the party and government. Vyshinsky demanded that his subordinates initiate criminal cases and bring officials and citizens to trial for a wide variety of offenses: representatives of the procurement committee for not delivering grain delivery obligations to collective farms and individual farms on time; heads of collective and state farms - for submitting “healthy pregnant cattle” for slaughter, as well as for concealing livestock from registration, for failure to fulfill plans for meat and milk supplies, for castration of breeding livestock; other business executives - for disruption of the uninterrupted operation of irrigation structures, for the unsanitary condition of bakeries, for overtime work. At the same time, it was often proposed to initiate cases immediately upon receipt of certain messages, especially from party and Soviet bodies, and to complete the investigation in 2-5, maximum 10 days. Prosecutors aimed at carrying out “timely, targeted, socially organized and harsh repression” (a phrase from one order).

Having become the prosecutor of the Union, Vyshinsky began to reorganize the prosecutor's office. He created, under his chairmanship, the Central Methodological Commission, which included the heads of the apparatus of the USSR Prosecutor's Office and scientists, in particular Aleksandrov, Golunsky, Viktorov, Roginsky, Strogovich, Umansky, Sheinin. He organized a civil department, headed by his assistant B.L. Borisov. The statistics service was radically restructured. By order of February 28, 1935, an information and statistical unit was organized in the USSR Prosecutor's Office (as a sector), subordinate directly to the Union Prosecutor. It was headed by A. A. Gertzenzon.

From the very first days of taking up his new position, Vyshinsky developed exceptional activity: trips, meetings, meetings with activists, and presentations followed one after another. In March 1935, he visited Kyiv, where he personally became acquainted with the work of the prosecutor's office. In April, I heard a report from the RSFSR Prosecutor V.A. Antonov-Ovseenko on the work of the prosecutor's office in combating the production of substandard products. In August, he made a large report at a meeting of the Presidium of the Comacademy, the Institute of Soviet Construction and Law and the Institute of Criminal Policy in connection with the third anniversary of the law of August 7, 1932 (on the protection of socialist property).

On May 11, 1935, Vyshinsky issued an order, approved by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, “On strengthening supervision over revolutionary legality,” which, of course, had a huge positive impact on the situation with the implementation of laws in the People's Commissariats, local Soviets, enterprises, institutions and collective farms.

On June 10, 1935, under the chairmanship of Vyshinsky, an extended operational and production meeting was held in the USSR Prosecutor's Office. Two reports were submitted for discussion by its participants: on measures for general supervision and on social workers (Roginsky spoke) and on work with personnel (Vavilov reported). In Roginsky's report on issues of general supervision, the main idea was the need for a decisive restructuring of work, starting from the USSR Prosecutor's Office and ending with the district level. It was proposed, in particular, to establish close ties between the prosecutor’s office and the legal departments and legal advisers of people’s commissariats, enterprises and institutions, regularly visit organizations, participate in the work of executive committees, etc.

Summing up the discussion of Roginsky's report, Vyshinsky warned prosecutors against two dangers: “going to extremes” and observing “all sorts of little things,” which would only distract prosecutors from their most important work; and “taking on advisory roles” to business and organizational leaders.

In Vavilov’s report, the key point was the question of staffing the prosecutor’s office, since at that time there was a shortage of more than 2 thousand people with an exceptionally high turnover, which in some republics reached 30 percent. When discussing this issue, Vyshinsky proposed a deep study of peripheral personnel, especially in operational sectors, so that “the leadership of their movement is of a very operational nature and is based not on any official moments, not on purely paper data, but on a systematic, deep familiarization with living human cadres and with their real work on specific cases.”

In August 1935, Vyshinsky participated in the trial in Baku regarding the sinking of the Soviet Azerbaijan tanker.

At the beginning of September of the same year, he gave a big speech in Tiflis “On socialist legality and the immediate tasks of the court and prosecutor’s office” at a meeting of senior officials of the court and prosecutor’s office of the Transcaucasian republics. Messages were made by the People's Commissars of Justice and the prosecutors of the Armenian - Ketykyan, Azerbaijan - Yagubov and Georgian - Ramishvili republics.

In 1935, when Vyshinsky was already the prosecutor of the Union, the authorities began to somewhat limit the scope of repressions against workers, mainly peasants. They also “condemned” the practice of “unauthorized arrests” and demanded that officials coordinate arrests with prosecutors. A secret resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted on June 17, 1935, “On the procedure for coordinating arrests.” It should be noted that in practice this provision was not always observed, especially in “counter-revolutionary cases,” to which prosecutors simply “turned a blind eye.” Moreover, there were even cases when they gave signed blank forms for arrest to the NKVD authorities, in which they only required to put down the surname, first name and patronymic of the arrested person, and also gave sanctions “retroactively.” During mass campaigns, prosecutors often stayed on duty at night so that NKVD officers could obtain an arrest warrant immediately.

Simultaneously with the strengthening of “control over arrests,” the process of reviewing some cases against collective farmers and representatives of rural authorities convicted in the early 30s also began. Vyshinsky very correctly grasped this situation and in December 1935 turned to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with a proposal for the need to review the sentences under the law of August 7, 1932, passed before January 1, 1935. The Politburo agreed with him, and in January 1936 a corresponding decree was adopted. Tens of thousands of those convicted of theft were released.

Vyshinsky’s work in subsequent years was quite intense. For example, on February 13, 1936, he met at the Union Prosecutor's Office with employees and activists of the Kalinin Region Prosecutor's Office. The conversation lasted about four hours. The first to speak was the regional prosecutor Nazarov. According to him, in the last year alone the number of activists has doubled and exceeded seven thousand people. They reported violations of the law, thefts and abuses they noticed, helped review complaints and newspaper articles, acted as prosecutors in court, helped study criminal cases subject to appeal, and the most legally trained of them even independently investigated criminal cases. From among the activists, some social part-time prosecutors and investigators were selected and then nominated for permanent work in the prosecutor's office.

After Nazarov, employees of the regional prosecutor's office and members of the prosecutor's office assistance group who were present at the meeting spoke. Here is a short excerpt from this conversation.

Psheorskaya(Assistant Prosecutor of Kalinin). I am a former employee of the Vagzhanov factory. Before joining the prosecutor's office, she worked in the active sector. In 1934, she was promoted to the position of assistant prosecutor. From that time on, I had to lead the work with the city’s assets... Special teams were created from the assets: for alimony cases, which monitors the timely payment of child support; for cooperation, which is actively fighting embezzlement and theft at retail outlets, and others.

Vyshinsky. Isn’t it difficult for you, Comrade Psheorskaya, to work?

Psheorskaya. I can cope with the work entrusted to me, although I still do not have any special legal training. Now this issue has been resolved, and the regional prosecutor's office is assigning a special teacher to improve my literacy. Comrade Nazarov has already allocated money for this.

Vyshinsky. Comrade Psheorskaya, do they help you in your practical work?

Psheorskaya. Of course, they help, because without this help I, an ordinary worker, would not be able to cope with such a big job. In particular, Comrade Nazarov helps me very well. I often turn to my city prosecutor, Comrade Ragozin, for help. I promise to improve my political and legal literacy and will achieve even better results in my work.

Then collective farmer A. A. Valova, who worked in the assistance group for more than a year, spoke. When asked by Vyshinsky how she manages to work on a collective farm, raise four children and actively help the prosecutor’s office, she replied: “When I need to do social work, I leave my husband and the kids.”

Vyshinsky. Is he also an activist?

Valova. Yes, he is an activist when he drinks wine, but when sober he is a completely retarded person. I often have to argue and prove to him that he needs to work more and drink less. These difficulties will not stop me; I will continue to work in the Stakhanovite way on the collective farm and as part of the prosecutor’s office.

Activists of the prosecutor's office, worker Belozerov, tractor driver Chumakov, teacher Galakhova and others also spoke at this meeting.

In conclusion, Vyshinsky noted the great successes achieved by the prosecutor's office of the Kalinin region in organizing and developing relations with assistance groups, especially highlighting the activities of the regional prosecutor Nazarov, his assistant Sadovnikov, prosecutors of the city of Kalinin Ragozin, Sebezh district Pirogov and Vyshnevolotsk district Evgrafov. “The work of the Kalinin residents,” he emphasized, “testifies that groups assisting the prosecutor’s office have taken deep roots in our land. This is good and very important. Here one of the most important principles of socialist construction is implemented - the direct participation of the working masses in governing the state.” Vyshinsky thanked the activists for their work and said that the Union Prosecutor’s Office would learn a serious lesson from this conversation. He promised to provide assistance to activists in organizing distance learning and supplying them with relevant literature.

In the spring of 1936, Vyshinsky made a report at the Institute of Criminal Policy on the topic “Problems of assessing evidence in Soviet criminal proceedings.” In it, he criticized the attitudes expressed in the reports of professors M. M. Grodzinsky and V. S. Strogovich, who, in his opinion, underestimated “subjective principles” in judicial work. The first considered it necessary to remove the mention of “internal conviction” from the Criminal Procedure Code, the second “emasculated the creative and active role” of the judge’s internal conviction. Vyshinsky said that the rejection of internal conviction as a criterion, as a way of evaluating evidence, leads to a narrowing of the creative activity of the judge, and this should inevitably entail the introduction into such an important and complex area of ​​​​judicial work of recognition of the formal order that connects the will and activity of the judge. “This provision is in direct contradiction with the requirements of our era,” he emphasized. In conclusion, Vyshinsky said that the work of a judge is creative, active, political and that the “objectification of evidence” should not be imposed on him. “The court should be as free as possible in assessing the evidence.”

In March 1936, Vyshinsky spoke at the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR on issues of judicial policy and judicial work (reports were made by the Chairman of the Supreme Court Vinokurov and the director of the Shlyapochnikov Institute of Criminal Policy). The Union Prosecutor subjected Vinokurov's report to devastating criticism, calling it a “statistical and accounting” and not a political report, since, in his opinion, it did not “identify the key issues of judicial policy”, there is no “guiding thread”, there is no “main core” " Hence, the debate proceeded “scatteredly, chaotically,” covering certain topics “superficially, carelessly, without clear guidelines.” Vyshinsky called Antonov-Saratovsky’s speech “strange”, and the content of his speech “hard to catch.” He also did not like Shlyapochnikov’s report, which “gave nothing,” and Krylenko’s speech.

On May 29 of the same year, Vyshinsky held a meeting at the USSR Prosecutor's Office with people's investigators from the prosecutor's offices of the Moscow and Kalinin regions. The first to speak was the prosecutor of the Kalinin region, Nazarov. He gave a depressing picture of the state of the investigative apparatus. Of the 69 investigators, more than 65 percent had lower education, and 29 percent had secondary education. Only three investigators had higher education; Two investigators graduated from a one-year law school, and 16 graduated from a six-month course. And yet, each of the investigators managed to complete up to 7 cases a month. Scientific and technical means were practically not used. In addition, 13 investigators were still temporarily acting as district prosecutors.

After his speech, Vyshinsky was forced to admit: “Our investigative apparatus has degraded. He has degraded from the point of view of his class stratum, he has degraded from the point of view of general training, he has degraded from the point of view of legal and judicial training... The investigative apparatus is the outskirts of our apparatus as a whole; Unfortunately it is so. They sent to investigators those who had nowhere else to send... They distributed university graduates in such a way that candidates for district prosecutors were selected first, the worst ones were sent to court, and the very worst ones were sent to investigators.” He further said that it is necessary to “strive to ensure that justice workers are legionnaires of our Soviet law... Investigators and prosecutors should be people without human weaknesses... these should be people for whom the issue of law and justice is a matter of life and death, and not a question of their service.” Vyshinsky admitted that “unfortunately, we are very far from this task.”

On July 13-16, 1936, the second All-Union Meeting of Prosecutors took place in Moscow. It was attended by prosecutors from union and autonomous republics, territories, regions, large cities, water basins, and railways. The meeting participants sent letters of welcome to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I.V. Stalin, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR V.M. Molotov and the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR M.I. Kalinin. Greetings were sent to the former prosecutor of the Union I. A. Akulov, who, after illness, took up the duties of secretary of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, as well as to the prosecutor of the Kharkov region M. I. Bron, who was unable to attend the meeting due to an attempt on his life (he was injured).

The meeting heard reports from the Union Prosecutor Vyshinsky “The Stalinist Constitution and the Tasks of the Justice Bodies” and his deputy Roginsky “Organizational Issues of Restructuring the Prosecutor’s Office in the Light of the Draft Stalinist Constitution.” Vyshinsky began his report with praises for the draft of the new Constitution, which even then everyone began to call Stalin’s. Then he quoted Stalin’s words that the Soviet Union was 50-100 years behind other developed countries: “We must “run” this distance in 10 years. Either we do this, or we will be crushed.” Thanks to the advantages of the Soviet system and socialist democracy, this task turned out to be quite feasible, Vyshinsky optimistically noted. Speaking about the section of the draft Constitution on the prosecutor's office, he criticized the point of view put forward by Antonov-Saratovsky in an article published in Pravda that the USSR Prosecutor's Office should be included in the People's Commissariat of Justice, as well as the ideas of Krylenko, who tried in the constitutional commission raise the question of excluding the word “superior” in relation to supervision from the section of the draft Constitution on the prosecutor’s office. “This is a very small proposal, harmless at first glance, but it could entail extremely serious consequences,” Vyshinsky emphasized. He further said: “We have every reason to say that the current Union Prosecutor’s Office is being built as a single independent system of prosecutorial bodies, purely centralized.”

Vyshinsky then moved on to outline the main tasks facing the prosecutor's office, focusing in more detail on two areas: issues related to general supervision and issues of judicial supervision. He noted that now, instead of departments of industry, agriculture, etc., departments of general supervision, investigative, criminal justice and others will be created. At the same time, Vyshinsky criticized the point of view of Antonov-Saratovsky and Vinogradov, who believed that the investigative apparatus should be removed from the prosecutor’s office and transferred to the justice authorities or the court.

Vyshinsky’s ideas on the structure of the prosecutor’s office were fleshed out in Roginsky’s report.

1936 turned out to be a very busy year for the Union Prosecutor. Vyshinsky endlessly spoke in numerous audiences on a wide variety of issues: at the Moscow Regional Congress of Members of the College of Defenders, at a meeting in the Prosecutor's Office of the Ukrainian SSR, at the VIII Congress of Soviets.

He also held some unconventional meetings. On August 31, he hosted the participants and organizers of a large rowing boat trip along the Volga. Seven activists of the prosecutor's office of the Kimry district of the Kalinin region S. I. Bolozerov, A. A. Goryachev, M. S. Andreyanova, S. N. Streybo, S. M. Bulanov, E. N. Sokolova and V. V. Zhukov, workers -Stakhanovites of the Savelovsky Mechanical Plant and the Krasnaya Zvezda shoe factory covered the distance from Kimry to Astrakhan in a record time - 25 days. Along the way, they got acquainted with the work of assistance groups of the prosecutor's offices of the Gorky, Kuibyshev, Saratov, Stalingrad territories, the Volga German Republic and shared their own experience.

The organizers of the transition, prosecutors of the Kimry district V.S. Shevrygin and the Kalinin region L.Ya. Nazarov, as well as all its participants, were awarded valuable gifts.

From August 20 to September 1, the first All-Union educational conference of people's and senior investigators was held at the USSR Prosecutor's Office, and from September 1 to 10, the second conference of investigators from military, railway and water transport prosecutor's offices was held. They were attended by 116 of the country's best investigators, most of whom had more than six years of work experience. After the conference, Vyshinsky held a meeting with investigators. In December of the same year, the third conference of investigators took place.

On November 5, 1936, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR approved the new structure of the Union Prosecutor's Office presented by Vyshinsky. Production departments (industrial, trade, cooperation and finance, and others) were liquidated. The new structure consisted of 15 divisions: the Main Military Prosecutor's Office, the Main Prosecutor's Office of Railway Transport, the Main Prosecutor's Office of Water Transport, departments of general supervision, criminal and civil judicial, investigative, special cases, supervision of places of detention and others. Directly under the Prosecutor of the USSR were prosecutors for special assignments, investigators for the most important cases, inspectors and consultants. In relation to this structure, the prosecutor's offices of the union and autonomous republics, territories and regions had to build their apparatuses.

By order of October 29, 1936, Vyshinsky, for the “purpose of unifying the methodological management of the investigation of all prosecutorial bodies,” transformed the Central Methodological Commission into the Methodological Council under the USSR Prosecutor. On November 22, opening its first meeting, Vyshinsky said that first of all it was necessary to resolve a number of important issues: about the investigator’s classification card, about the organization of training conferences, about social workers for investigators, about the open investigation. After this, the members of the methodological council discussed the draft plan of methodological activities, which was reported by E. E. Leventon. In total, in 1936, four meetings of the Methodological Council were held.

On December 25-28, 1936, the first All-Union meeting of court and prosecutor's office workers in civil cases was held in Moscow. It was opened with opening remarks by the USSR People's Commissar of Justice N.V. Krylenko and the USSR Deputy Prosecutor G.M. Leplevsky. Vyshinsky was not at the opening of the meeting; at that time he was preparing for the trial of the Trotskyist anti-Soviet center, but then he came and gave a big speech. Reports were made by the Deputy Chairman of the Civil Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR Reichel, the Chairman of a similar Collegium of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR Lisitsyn and Assistant Prosecutor of the USSR Borisov.

In 1937-1938, Vyshinsky still spoke a lot in various audiences, sometimes making large speeches, in particular at a meeting of prosecutors of water and railway transport, repeatedly - at the Law Academy and at the assets of the USSR Prosecutor's Office, at meetings of prosecutors in the Byelorussian SSR and the Leningrad Region , at the 4th session of the USSR Central Executive Committee of the 8th convocation and at the 2nd session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at the plenums of the Supreme Court of the USSR, at the All-Union Conference on Legal Education, at the party-Soviet-Komsomol activists in Saratov, at the general meeting of students and teachers of the Law Institute, at a meeting of members of the election district commissions of Moscow and the Moscow region. He held several night meetings with prosecutors of the republics, territories and regions on the radio, for example, on April 10, 1937, at such a meeting the work of the prosecutor's office was discussed and complaints and applications were considered.

On July 20, 1937, the “merits” of A. Ya. Vyshinsky in strengthening “revolutionary legality” were awarded a high award - the Order of Lenin. As was usual at that time, numerous welcoming telegrams and letters were addressed to him from prosecutors, representatives of justice authorities, courts, legal institutions, and even from “specialists and employees of the Irkutsk enterprises of Glavryba” and “employees of the Kursk Penkotrest.”

On August 29, 1937, in connection with the 15th anniversary of the prosecutor's office, a group of prosecutors was awarded orders. The Order of Lenin was awarded to the deputy prosecutor of the USSR G.K. Roginsky, the Order of the Red Star was awarded to the chief military prosecutor N.S. Rozovsky, his assistant A.S. Grodko and the military prosecutor S.Ya. Ulyanova, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor was awarded to investigators for the most important cases of the Union Prosecutor's Office L. R. Sheinin and M. Yu. Raginsky, prosecutor of the West Siberian Territory I. I. Barkov, prosecutor of the special cases department A. M. Gluzman and deputy prosecutor of the Union G. M. Leplevsky. The vast majority of those awarded were in one way or another connected with the preparation and conduct of political processes.

In 1936-1937, the USSR Prosecutor's Office organized a number of large processes on the facts of gross and massive violations of the law on the ground revealed by inspections. These were the so-called Lepel, Shiryaev and Chechelnitsky processes. The process against the leaders of the Shiryaevsky district of the Odessa region was especially loud. The accused included the chairmen of the district executive committee and village councils, the secretary of the district party committee, heads of departments of the executive committee and even the district prosecutor.

According to the indictment, violations of laws in the area were widespread and were expressed in direct mockery of people. Rude administration, mutual responsibility, and nepotism were noted. It was useless to complain to anyone in the area about these violations. The chairman of the Viktorovsky village council, Pugach, cynically told the collective farmers: “You can complain to the light bulb.” And those who tried to fight violations or appealed to higher authorities suffered even more. In retaliation for complaints to the central authorities, property was generally taken away from collective farmers (for example, local authorities took everything from Vlasenko, even removing the collar from his dog). The chairmen of village councils could organize with impunity the so-called “night strike brigades” to collect mandatory payments, during which collective farmers, even those living several kilometers from the regional center, were called 5-10 times in one night for “conversations” at the brigade headquarters, and for failure to appear were fined and their property was seized. People did not find support in the prosecutor's office either. At the trial they said: “Our prosecutor is a small man.” About the secretary of the district party committee they said this: “A hat with a party card.”

The visiting session of the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR sentenced all those responsible in this case to imprisonment for a term of 3 to 10 years, including the district prosecutor.

A. Ya. Vyshinsky was one of the few Soviet prosecutors who not only did not shy away from the court platform, but took pleasure in speaking in trials and felt confident and at ease. In this regard, only another born tribune, N.V. Krylenko, could compete with him. All prosecutors before Vyshinsky and after him (with the possible exception of R. A. Rudenko) did not “favor” the judicial tribune.

Vyshinsky not only spoke a lot himself, and at the most high-profile trials, but also demanded the same from his subordinates. At the meeting of employees of the USSR Prosecutor's Office on August 27, 1938, A. Ya. Vyshinsky recalled: “I have repeatedly said that a prosecutor who does not appear in the courts of first instance is not a prosecutor.”

At a meeting of prosecutors in the Leningrad region in the same 1938, Vyshinsky again raised this issue. “Now our prosecutors shy away from appearing in court,” he said, “because they do not feel sufficiently prepared for the trial, partly because they have no taste for this case. These prosecutors forget that the court is the main arena of prosecutorial activity. I, as a prosecutor of the Union, must categorically declare that I will continue to vigorously fight this fundamentally incorrect attitude of some prosecutors towards this duty.

A prosecutor is a public figure, a prosecutor is a court tribune, a state prosecutor is a representative of the interests of the state in court. When the prosecutor supports the charge that he initiated, and when he refuses to support the charge, he equally remains a representative of state interests, an envoy of the state, a herald of state truth.”

We talked about some trials in which Vyshinsky supported the prosecution, being a prosecutor of the RSFSR and a deputy prosecutor of the USSR. But even in the rank of Prosecutor of the USSR, he spent many days behind the bench.

One of the most famous cases (not related to political ones), in which Vyshinsky participated already as the Prosecutor of the USSR, is the case of accusing the former head of the winter camp on Wrangel Island, K. D. Semenchuk, and musher S. P. Startsev of the murder of Doctor N. L. Wolfson. It was initiated at the end of 1935, and the investigation into it was carried out by the investigator for the most important cases, L. R. Sheinin. At one time, this case was presented as a kind of “example” of the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings. Therefore, let's dwell on it.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the RSFSR from May 17 to May 23, 1936. The defendants were sentenced to capital punishment and shot.

The plot of the case was as follows. On December 26, 1934, Dr. Wolfson, on the orders of the head of the winter quarters, Semenchuk, went, accompanied by musher Startsev, on two sleds from Cape Rogers to the sick Eskimos in Predatelskaya Bay and Cape Blasson. On December 31, Startsev returned alone and reported that Dr. Wolfson had gotten lost on the way. On the first day of the search, the doctor's sledge was found firmly locked. Of the eight harnessed dogs, seven survived. A few days later, Wulfson’s corpse was discovered two kilometers from this place. The doctor's face was covered in blood and disfigured. Five meters away from him lay a broken hard drive with one spent cartridge case. The doctor's corpse was transported to Cape Rogers and buried there without an autopsy. The wife of the deceased, Doctor Feldman, who was also on Wrangel Island, suspecting the violent death of her husband, demanded that the head of the winter quarters, Semenchuk, send a message about what had happened to Moscow with a request to send an investigator. However, Semenchuk opposed this. Only almost a year later a criminal case was opened on this fact. Doctor Krasheninnikov, who arrived at the cape, exhumed Wulfson’s corpse and established that his death was violent.

The investigation established that Semenchuk actually “failed” all scientific and fishing work, and was cruel to the local population and commercial hunters. Among the Eskimos, who did not receive any food assistance from the head of the winter quarters, illnesses began, and some of the local residents even died of starvation. The station was dominated by disorder, decay and drunkenness, which Dr. Wolfson tried to fight, but to no avail. After the death of Wulfson, the biologist Vakulenko committed suicide and the Eskimo musher Tagyu died under unclear circumstances. In November 1935, Semenchuk was removed from his post as head of the winter quarters. In the order of the head of the Main Northern Sea Route, O. Yu. Schmidt, it was noted that as a result of criminal carelessness, administrative arbitrariness and callous attitude towards people, Semenchuk brought the winter camp to complete economic collapse.

Vyshinsky spoke about all this in his indictment. But what kind of evidence did the prosecutor have in his hands to accuse Startsev of the murder of Wulfson, and Semenchuk as an accomplice in inciting and organizing the murder?

Vyshinsky based his speech on indirect evidence. And I must admit that he did it brilliantly. He used the techniques that were developed by W. Wiles in the book “An Experience in the Theory of Circumstantial Evidence Explained by Examples.” Vyshinsky quite convincingly proved that Startsev, who went with Dr. Wulfson, could not “lose” him, since there was no blizzard, which the defendant referred to. In addition, Startsev stated that he was driving in front of the doctor, and when he had a breakdown, Vulfson allegedly overtook him and, without stopping, drove ahead, after which he disappeared. This version was refuted by experienced polar explorers, claiming that the dogs in the sled are trained so that they never overtake stopped sledges, but stop and lie down on the snow. The doctor’s corpse was found two kilometers from the “stalled” sled, while even experienced polar explorers in good weather do not move further than a kilometer from them, not to mention bad weather, when they, as a rule, stay near the sled, since only in this may be their salvation. As established, Wulfson was not an experienced polar explorer and did not know how to “stop” the sleds, which required considerable skill.

Vyshinsky outlined in detail other indirect evidence that “incriminates” Startsev. He analyzed all possible situations of the doctor's death - murder by a local shaman, another person, for example Vakulenko, who was hostile to Wulfson, an accident - and rejected them all as unfounded. The prosecutor managed to convince the judges that the head of the winter quarters, Semenchuk, was involved in the murder. Among the evidence against him in the case was also a note left by Dr. Wulfson on the eve of the fateful trip: “I ask you to blame only Konstantin Dmitrievich Semenchuk for my death,” he wrote.

Vyshinsky asked to find Semenchuk and Startsev guilty of the murder of Dr. Wulfson and sentence them to capital punishment. The court agreed with him. However, during the period of “perestroika” this verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence of a crime.

Accusatory speeches like the one Vyshinsky made in the case of Semenchuk and Startsev created him a fairly wide reputation. However, throughout the world Vyshinsky was known only as the “prosecutor of the Moscow trials.” In 1936-1938 he acted on a number of major political cases. Having carefully prepared for them, he spoke emotionally, passionately, and it made an impression. Among them is the case of the “United Trotskyist-Zinoviev Center,” heard by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR from August 19 to August 24, 1936. According to it, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Evdokimov and Bakaev (from the Zinovievites), Smirnov, Ter-Vaganyan and Mrachkovsky (from the Trotskyists), as well as Dreitzer, Pickel and others were brought to justice. All of them were accused under Articles 58-8 and 58-11 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. The military board sentenced them to capital punishment, which was carried out on August 25, 1936.

From January 23 to January 30, 1937, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court, with the participation of State Prosecutor Vyshinsky, heard the case of the “Moscow Parallel Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center.” 17 people walked along it, including Pyatakov, Radek, Sokolnikov, Serebryakov, Muralov. The court sentenced 13 people to death and the rest to long terms of imprisonment. The convicts were shot immediately after the verdict was pronounced.

From March 2 to March 13, 1938, Vyshinsky took part in the trial in the case of the Anti-Soviet Right-Trotskyist Bloc. Among the defendants are Krestinsky, Rykov, Bukharin, Rakovsky, Yagoda, doctors Levin and Pletnev, 21 people in total. All defendants, with the exception of Pletnev, Rakovsky and Bessonov, were sentenced to death. The sentence was carried out on March 15, 1938.

The press at one time wrote in sufficient detail about these cases, the methods of conducting the “investigation,” about “extorting” confessions from the accused and then from the defendants, monstrous falsifications and forgeries, as well as about the role of the “chief Stalinist inquisitor” Vyshinsky. All these cases have now been reviewed, the sentences have been overturned, and the persons involved in them have been rehabilitated (with the exception of Yagoda).

Vyshinsky’s speeches on political cases, which we mentioned above, have nothing in common with the judicial speeches of state prosecutors, where a scrupulous analysis of evidence incriminating the guilty persons is required. In them, he did not bother himself with a deep study of the guilt of the defendants, but only gave them a journalistic character and a political coloring that was pleasing to the authorities. And in this he succeeded. As for presenting evidence to the court, this was not required at all, since the verdicts were in fact already predetermined, and not even by Vyshinsky. In these processes he was only the mouthpiece of Stalin and his entourage. Vyshinsky’s speeches on political matters do not stand up to any criticism, either from a legal or a moral point of view. Not only did they not contain a strong evidence base, but they were also filled with rude, offensive language, which is completely unacceptable for prosecutors. He called the defendants “a gang of despicable terrorists”, “mad dogs” who “must be shot every single one”, “the lackeys and boors of capitalism”, “rabid counter-revolutionary elements”, “monsters”, “a damned cross between a fox and a pig” (about Bukharin ), "damned reptile".

As already mentioned, in his speeches Vyshinsky placed the main emphasis not on evidence, especially since the verdict was already a foregone conclusion, but on rhetoric and pathos. And not because the “chief inquisitor” was a bad lawyer - it was necessary to use red phrases and labels not so much to justify the process that had already taken place, but to prepare the ground for future ones.

Here are some of his “beautiful” phrases: “In the dark underground, Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev throw out a vile call: remove, kill! The underground machine begins to work, knives are sharpened, revolvers are loaded, bombs are loaded, false documents are written and fabricated, secret connections are established with the German political police, posts are set up, shooting practice, and finally they shoot and kill" (From a speech on the case of the "United Trotskyist- Zinoviev terrorist center").

Or: “These people, these lackeys and boors of capitalism, tried to trample into the mud the great and holy feeling of our national, our Soviet patriotic pride, they wanted to mock our freedom, the sacrifices made by our people for their freedom, they betrayed our people, crossed on the side of the enemy, on the side of the aggressors and agents of capitalism. The wrath of our people will destroy, incinerate the traitors and wipe them off the face of the earth...” (From a speech on the case of the “Moscow Parallel Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center”).

And one more sample. “The despicable, treacherous, gangster activities of the Bukharins, Yagodas, Krestinskys, Rykovs and other right-wing Trotskyists are now exposed before the whole world. They sold our homeland, traded military secrets of its defense, they were spies, saboteurs, saboteurs, murderers, thieves - and all in order to help the fascist governments overthrow the Soviet government, overthrow the power of workers and peasants, restore the power of capitalists and landowners, dismember the country of the Soviet people, to tear away the national republics and turn them into imperialist colonies” (from a speech on the case of the “Anti-Soviet Right-Trotskyist Bloc”).

Analyzing these processes from the point of view of a lawyer, the former prosecutor of the RSFSR and Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR A. A. Volin, who knew Vyshinsky first-hand, told the authors: “A naive question would be whether Vyshinsky realized that repressions, artificially clothed in a legal, legitimate form, in their political content they are generally of a preventive nature, that “evidence of guilt” of those accused of treason, committing terrorist acts and other crimes of this kind is obtained either by cruel or insidious methods. By the nature of his activity, Vyshinsky knew this as well as Stalin himself. They acted out trials the same way actors act out plays. And in this sense, Vyshinsky cannot but share with Stalin responsibility for the grossest violations of the law, for which there is no forgiveness.”