The court found the accused guilty. Confession by the defendant of his guilt and its influence on the evidence and decision-making in a criminal case

The testimony of the accused is information about the circumstances included in the scope of the charge, as well as other circumstances, evidence and sources of evidence, reported during interrogation by a person brought to criminal responsibility. The testimony of the accused is not only a means of proving the circumstances of a criminal case, but also a means of protecting the accused from the charges brought against him. The testimony of the accused may be confessional or acquittal. Distinguish full recognition, ie. confirmation by the accused of the entire volume of the charges brought, and partial confession. With a partial confession, the accused may, for example, deny his participation in certain episodes of criminal activity, his especially active role in the commission of the crime, its intentional nature, object to the correctness of the qualification of his actions given in the charge, etc. If the accused admits the objective side of his actions, but denies their guilty (intentional or careless) nature, or for other reasons does not agree with the assessment of these actions as unlawful, his testimony cannot be considered as confessionary. The criminal procedure law treats the confession of the accused as to any other evidence, requiring its confirmation by the totality of other evidence collected in this criminal case (part 2 of the commentary of the article). The basis of this requirement is the principle of freedom of assessment of evidence, according to which no evidence has a predetermined force (part 2 of article 17). At the same time, only the totality of such evidence can be sufficient, which have as their primary source not only the confession of the accused, but also other sources of evidentiary information independent of the testimony of the accused. The confession of the accused cannot be considered as the main evidence. In the absence of other evidence confirming the guilt of the accused of committing a crime, his confession cannot be used as the basis for bringing charges or a guilty verdict. Since confession facilitates the process of proof, in investigative practice there is a desire of persons conducting proceedings in a case to obtain evidence from the accused in which he pleads guilty and provides the necessary information about the circumstances of the crime. Such a practice should not be regarded as negative, or even more so as a violation of the procedural law, if the interrogators did not use illegal methods of obtaining evidence of a guilty plea, and such were given when he had the freedom to choose to testify. Evidence is not the admission of guilt by the accused, but the information about the circumstances of the commission of the crime, which is contained in his testimony. The recognition by the accused of his guilt in the presence of the conditions provided for by law may have significant criminal procedural and criminal law significance. Thus, the accused has the right, with the consent of the public or private prosecutor and the victim, to declare his agreement with the charge brought against him and petition for a sentence without a trial in criminal cases for crimes punishable by less than five years in prison (see commentary to 314). At the same time, in accordance with Part 7 of Art. 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when a guilty verdict is passed without a trial, the punishment for the defendant cannot exceed two thirds of the maximum term or the size of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed. In this case, the verdict cannot be appealed on appeal and cassation on the grounds provided for in paragraph 1 of Art. 379 Code of Criminal Procedure. Peculiar forms of confession of the accused are his confession and active assistance in solving the crime, exposing other accomplices in the crime and searching for property obtained as a result of the crime, as well as providing medical and other assistance to the victim immediately after the commission of the crime, voluntary compensation for property damage and moral damage caused as a result of a crime, other actions aimed at making amends for the harm caused to the victim (paragraphs “i” and “k” of part 1 of article 61 of the Criminal Code). Such forms of recognition have criminal legal significance. If there are extenuating circumstances provided for in paragraphs “and” and “k” of Part 1 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code, and in the absence of aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code), the term or amount of punishment may not exceed three-quarters of the maximum term or amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (Article 62 of the Criminal Code). eleven.

You can also find information of interest in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

More on the topic Acknowledgment by the accused of his guilt and its influence on the evidence and decision-making in a criminal case.:

1. CHAPTER 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 1. The concept of the criminal process and the general characteristics of its structure
2. § 7. Examination of a criminal case on the merits in a court of first instance

Domestic criminal law science and practice proceed from the fact that guilt is the psychological attitude of a person to a socially dangerous act committed by him.

To admit or not to admit one's guilt in a crime is an exclusively personal matter for each individual person, whether he is a suspect, an accused, or a person who does not have these statuses.

In such a situation, an admission of guilt is bringing to the attention of the preliminary investigation authorities and the court of one's attitude to the imputed act. At the same time, it does not matter at all what motives drive the person brought to criminal responsibility.

The question of admission of guilt arises in every criminal case. In my practice, there were no cases when a person, against whom a criminal case has not yet been initiated, called and raised the question of whether he should go to the police and admit his guilt.

As a rule, in most criminal cases, the issue of confession of guilt by the employees conducting the investigation or inquiry, the operational police officers try to resolve before the appearance of a lawyer in the case.

The fact is that a person detained immediately after the event of a crime, arrested suddenly during the commission of actions that can be considered criminal, in a situation where there are traces of a crime on him, such a person almost always has a narrowed perception of reality. Such a person is trapped, he cannot sit down and calmly think about what the current situation actually threatens him with, how to behave, whether there is an opportunity to prove innocence, he may not even have the idea to open 2GIS and contact some lawyer. Even if the detainee behaves aggressively, resists the police, claims that he is being detained illegally, this does not mean at all that in the current situation for him he thinks broadly and is fully aware of all his actions.

In such a definitely psychotraumatic situation, not one of the operatives will say: “Well, okay, I see that you can’t collect your thoughts at all, let’s calm down now, discuss your position with a lawyer, and tomorrow evening, with new forces, together with you will come to our offices as your defender, and we will already interrogate you.” Such a position for an operative would be a failure, so the police officers use all possible and impossible methods to induce a person to admit guilt. They can apply completely permissible, and even, in some situations, justified from a moral point of view, methods of psychological influence that allow expanding the possibility of perceiving reality in the direction of accepting and admitting one's guilt.

I noticed that in such situations, the position of admitting or not admitting guilt is completely independent of the volitional qualities of a person. A strong-willed, strong-willed person can both fully admit guilt and completely deny it. It all depends on whether he is really guilty, whether the police officers were able to find the necessary "psychological keys" to the person, on how narrowed the perception of the reality of the person, on the composition of the crime to the sane person, on the temporary removal of the events of the crime from the moment of detention or interrogation.

In a situation where, due to a number of circumstances, the suspect is not in custody, did not give a confession and comes to the lawyer to discuss the possibility of concluding an agreement, this person already puts on such a tough armor of protection that he does not reveal himself even to his lawyer. Almost always, work with such trustees begins with a long conversation, in which, by asking questions, comparing circumstances with the trustee, one has to bit by bit restore the true state of affairs for oneself.

When, in my opinion, as a lawyer, one should really plead guilty:

• 1. In the case of a truly complete personal confession of the suspect (accused) of his guilt, when a person cannot imagine his existence without the fact of sincere repentance for the crime, he himself demands justice over himself;
• 2. In a situation where the evidence presented by the investigator on all elements of the crime irrefutably testifies to the existence of exactly the crime that is imputed to the suspect (accused) and his guilt in the crime, that is, when the complete non-admission of guilt is clearly destructive in nature;
• 3. If the parties to the conflict have come to the conclusion that it is possible to terminate the criminal case in connection with the reconciliation of the parties and there are all legal grounds for this;
• 4. When the suspect (accused) does not deny the fact of committing a crime and wishes that the criminal case against him be terminated due to active repentance or considered in a special manner, provided for by Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Meanwhile, neither the Criminal Code nor the criminal procedure law contains such a concept as “confession of guilt”, does not correlate “confession of guilt” with the imposition of punishment or with any procedural consequences. In fact, only the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On the practice of imposing criminal penalties by the courts of the Russian Federation” dated December 22, 2015 No. 58 indicates the possibility of considering admission of guilt as a circumstance mitigating punishment.

An admission of guilt should be distinguished from:

• - agreement with the accusation;
• - confessions;
• – active contribution to the disclosure and investigation of the crime.

The confession of guilt in itself, although it can be recognized as a circumstance mitigating punishment, does not entail the consequences provided for in Parts 1, 5 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, the law does not establish any strict limits for the court to reduce the maximum possible punishment.

Consent with the charge and admission of guilt are concepts that are close in meaning, but not equal.

Agreeing with the charge- this is the consent of the accused with the factual circumstances of the deed, the form of guilt, the motives for the commission of the act, the legal assessment of the deed, as well as the nature and extent of the harm caused by the deed, as well as the nature and extent of the harm caused by the deed (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 05.12.2006 No. litigation in criminal cases)

Based on these explanations, it is possible to agree with the accusation without admitting guilt, without repenting, and in no way contributing to the disclosure of the crime. For example, the accused knows perfectly well that he is guilty of a greater crime, but, realizing that it is better to receive a punishment under a milder article, he agrees with the charge, not contributing to the further disclosure of the crime.

Active promotion of disclosure a crime is recognized as a mitigating circumstance when a person reports a crime committed with his participation or about his role in a crime and provides the bodies of inquiry or investigation with information that is important for the disclosure and investigation of a crime (for example, indicates the persons involved in the commission of a crime, reports their data and location, information confirming their participation in the commission of a crime, and also indicates persons who can testify, persons who have acquired stolen property; indicates the place of concealment of the stolen property, the location of the instruments of crime, other items and documents that can serve as means detection of a crime and establishing the circumstances of a criminal case) / clause 30 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On the practice of imposing criminal penalties by the courts of the Russian Federation” dated December 22, 2015 No. 58 /.

Turnout with confession- this is a voluntary report of a person about a crime committed by him or with his participation, made in writing or orally. Such a report can be made only before the official registration of the detention of a person suspected of committing a crime, and certainly implies an admission of guilt.

Recognition of the factual circumstances of the case and recognition of the legal qualification of actions

Perhaps the most important aspect of the admission of guilt for the defense is the consent or disagreement of the person with the legal assessment of the deed given by the official investigating the criminal case.

It is important for the defense to understand that a confession may be true, or it may be the result of self-incrimination or misrepresentation. In such cases, situations arise when the accused fully admits guilt, since he believes that the investigation correctly stated the circumstances of the case, but does not agree with the legal assessment of the deed. Let us assume that he believes that there are circumstances that significantly reduce the public danger of the act, or that, for example, the murder did not take place with particular cruelty, or that there is no excess of the limits of necessary defense, or so on.

In such a difficult situation, one should petition the investigation to re-qualify the actions of the accused, or, for example, to recognize as a mitigating circumstance the unlawful behavior of the victim, which caused the commission of the crime. All this makes sense if the chosen position in the future will allow the case to be considered in a special order.

In a situation of consideration of the case in a special manner, in the presence of a mitigating circumstance of actively contributing to the disclosure and investigation of a crime, the court will have to impose a punishment in the manner prescribed by Part 5 of Article 65 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, that is, no more than two thirds of two thirds of the maximum punishment. For example, with a maximum penalty of 7 years' imprisonment, in accordance with Part 5 of Article 65 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the maximum penalty cannot exceed 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment.

Do you admit guilt?

Do you admit guilt? This is the main question of a person who is accused of committing a crime. Each case is someone's fate, and fate, like a criminal case, everyone has their own, there are no similar fates and there are no similar criminal cases, but there are general criteria when it is still necessary to admit guilt, and when one cannot plead guilty to a committed crime under what circumstances.

Remember! An admission of guilt is the main piece of evidence in a criminal case. Guilt is the queen of evidence! If you confessed, and then changed your mind and decided to change your testimony and withdraw your confession, then even if you subsequently withdraw your testimony, it will be used as evidence in a criminal case.

How does it usually happen?

Operatives take explanations from a person, press or persuade a person to confess everything that they say it will be better, operatives use many different tricks so that a person confesses what he did or did not do, it does not matter who is to blame. Unfortunately, in our system of law enforcement agencies, the main task is not to understand the case, but by all possible means, including by deceit, to obtain a confession of guilt from a person, to obtain a coveted signature that a person admits his guilt. Then the investigator arrives or the person is taken to the investigator and interrogation begins as a suspect. Investigators, as a rule, are more civilized employees, not rude, unlike operational employees, they try to find contact with a person, they do everything possible to enter into your confidence.

If the interrogator is too polite with you at the first interrogation? This is a sign that there is no evidence against you!

Yes, yes, this is the first sign that there is no evidence against a person, so the main goal of the investigator is to persuade you, assure you that there is no other way out, pour you some tea, offer to smoke together, everything is very polite, the main goal is to gain confidence in you, establish contact and the investigator thinks of only one thing at this moment, what would you write in the protocol of interrogation as a suspect in the line: I fully admit my guilt and testified. As soon as you sign your confession and write your guilt, I fully admit my deed, I repent, it was written down from my words correctly, I read it, the investigator immediately prints out the protocol of the prosecution to consolidate the result and duplicates all your confessions again, you put the coveted signature on the confession your guilt and all of you are in a trap and that's it, after two protocols you will not go anywhere.

If you confessed in the protocol as a suspect, and then later in the protocol as an accused, then it simply makes no sense not to admit your guilt, by your non-recognition you simply increase your term and severity of punishment. It's like the old saying goes, if a rabbit's head is trapped with a rope, then any further attempts to break free will only result in suffocation. It's about the same here.

The only way out in this situation is to recognize these protocols with your admission of guilt as inadmissible evidence in a criminal case. But there is one big BUT, it is very difficult to get the court to recognize these protocols as inadmissible and obtained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Many will ask, but how did I give these testimonies under pressure, I was deceived and so on, but this is all lyrics and snot, but facts are needed. To prove that you were deceived and that they promised you something and used your legal illiteracy is nonsense. During interrogation, the investigator always invites a state lawyer, without a lawyer, interrogation of a person is considered illegal, but state lawyers very often do not come for interrogation, but put their signatures at the end of the interrogation. It can be said that the person was interrogated without a lawyer, but how to prove it? That's the question. You can compare the hours when the person was interrogated (the hours of interrogation are always indicated at the beginning of the protocol) and the hours when the lawyer came. If the interrogation was carried out in a temporary detention center, then there is a book of visitors and each person who enters enters the time of entry and exit. But here there is a big trap, the fact is that the investigator and the lawyer fill out these requirements and set the time of arrival in strict accordance with the time of the protocol, we do not have electronic cards in Russia that clearly record the time of each lawyer and investigator, we fill out ordinary paper "stubs" and you can write there at any time of arrival. Therefore, only cameras can give at least some intelligible answer to the question: was there a lawyer at the interrogation, if not, then these protocols with an admission of guilt must be recognized as invalid. And so it's all useless. Only facts and evidence are needed by the court.

Common ploy by investigators

Very often, investigators say the following thing: “It makes no sense for you not to confess, we have a video recording where everything is recorded.” And he presents this video, a legally illiterate person admits, because he sees that everything is really on the video and it is pointless to deny everything. And this is the main mistake. Recognition recognition of discord. And whether to confess to the crime that you are charged with is not worth it. For example, the video shows an attack on a person with a weapon, the person's phone is taken away and they run away. The person who did all this was caught and they showed him this video, and what is the person doing? He confesses to robbery (in one of the most terrible and difficult articles) and completely deprives himself of the chances of reclassifying the article. This is the most terrible trap! The man confessed to the robbery, depriving himself of the opportunity to switch to lighter articles.

Rule number one, never, under any circumstances, at the beginning of the investigation, do not plead guilty under grave and especially grave articles, no matter what you are shown or told. No matter what the witnesses are. The task of the investigation is to prove your guilt and “stretch” you a heavier article, and your task is to make the article softer. The most important thing is which article is imputed to you, which part. Remember! By admitting guilt under a serious article at the beginning of the investigation, you yourself are signing a sentence for a long time. You need to plead guilty or not plead guilty at the end of the investigation, if the investigation has enough evidence in your criminal case. They are just waiting for your recognition. Why help them, it's your destiny and you can't sign under heavy articles under any circumstances. Therefore, you will decide whether or not to confess only at the end of the investigation, when you will be charged in the final version, only at the end you can really assess all the evidence against you and decide whether it is worth pleading guilty to the crime in which you are accused. Give yourself a chance, do not help the investigation to do their job, let them prove your guilt, and do not help them to accuse themselves.

self-incrimination

Some very often say that I slandered myself, in our country such a thing as self-incrimination is only on paper, in practice it is unrealistic to prove that you slandered yourself. You can slander yourself only under strong psychological and physical pressure from law enforcement agencies or third parties, if someone threatened you or threatened your family members to take all the blame. It is difficult to prove this, you need testimonies, SMS messages, messages in messengers with death threats received by you or your loved ones if you do not admit your guilt. Simply saying that me and my family were threatened does not mean anything, we need real evidence. In our practice, there have been many times when people claimed that they were receiving threats, but only once we really managed to prove the fact of self-incrimination, since the father of a young man received SMS messages that he would be killed if his son did not take everything upon himself and tell, who actually committed the crime. Apparently, the people who threatened lost their fear and were not afraid of anything, so they sent threatening SMS messages. But this happens only in isolated cases, now when there are messengers people threaten and immediately delete the messages after it has been read, it becomes much harder to prove the threats. And the court needs to see concrete evidence, the court cannot take the words of the accused and his family as a basis, since this is considered a method of protection, nothing more.

People are sure that if they are affected by a criminal case, then they certainly will not slander themselves, no, dear, 90% of our citizens believe that by saying that they will be given a suspended sentence, the investigator assures that everything will be fine only to confess, yes, yes, yes, otherwise there’s no way to remain free, you must urgently confess, and people themselves and with their own hands write their confession about what they did or did not do.

Should I confess in court?

To answer this question, you must realistically evaluate all the chances of being able to exonerate you or your loved one or retrain from a more serious article or part of an article to a less serious one. Understand that the court makes a decision without whether it believes you or does not believe it, the court can in its soul believe you and sympathize with you, but remember how the court will pass a sentence if there is too much evidence against you, where will the court put them, tear out the pages from the criminal affairs? Evaluate all the evidence in the case, evaluate what evidence you have that supports your position. How can you refute the evidence that the investigating authorities have collected against you. Evaluate everything objectively! Emotionless! Just facts. The court evaluates only the facts. Turn off emotions, pain, injustice, set-ups, evaluate the facts and your counter-arguments that you have. Only in this way can you answer the question for yourself whether it is worth confessing to a crime or not. Whether to admit guilt or stand up to the end.

A lot also depends on the individual judge, judges are divided into two categories: those who delve into the case and those who want to quickly consider it, the judge considers the criminal case superficially and formally. The human factor is also at work here. What category of people who are given to decide your fate you will get does not depend on you.

Falsifying evidence against you

Unfortunately, this is hard to work with. Our people who work in law enforcement are masters of fraud and falsification, they succeeded very well in this, it’s really hard and difficult for them to look for evidence of the guilt of a person and the person who committed the crime, but to fabricate this, please, violate all possible human rights also please. Here you need to work, look at what was fabricated, what witnesses are clearly “fake”, it is difficult to prove fabricated evidence, but it is not impossible, therefore, if you are charged under a serious article, you must fight at the entire stage of the investigation. And then look and evaluate what was refuted.

We will be very grateful if you place our site on your wall Vkontakte or Odnoklassniki. Click on the icon below and put like, so that as many people as possible know their legal rights and are not subjected to illegal actions by our police.

It is important to know!

Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

A newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living beings with vision.

Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate. From that moment, no words or details have been preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider your family.

System and Observer

Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not a part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.

From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.

An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which the inversion of the observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is even an object potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer

It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the determining factor is the “internal observer”, then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

First examine the wording of the suspicion

The information you provide is a story about the events as you saw them.

In order to understand why you are suspected of precisely this composition, you need to study how the investigator puts it.

At the moment, you have the status of a suspect, so the decision to initiate a case is the source of information about the case for you.

You must receive a copy of this document, this is your right as a suspect ( clause 1 part 4 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ).

This document sets out the so-called "grounds" for initiating a criminal case, these are specific signs that allow qualifying an act precisely under such an article.

After you study the decision to initiate a case: you need to assess what factual circumstances contradict the conclusions of the investigator about the presence of corpus delicti. If you think you can figure it out, do it yourself, but it is better to take this document to a professional defense lawyer for analysis.

If it is concluded that there is no corpus delicti in your actions, then it is required that the factual circumstances (speaking of innocence) receive the status of defense evidence, they must be entered into the materials of the criminal case. This is done not by telling the investigator and other participants in the process, but only by investigative actions: confrontations , interrogation of witnesses .

To do this, then you need to file a petition for conducting investigative actions to verify these factual circumstances, it will be difficult for him to refuse the petition ( Part 2 159 Code of Criminal Procedure).

Refusal to admit guilt

Learn the specifics of retracting confessions here: , its role in the evidence base.

Soft change of readings

Despite the foregoing, it is often necessary to change the testimony.

You need to do it in such a way that:

a)new evidence fit into the overall picture, were integrated with other evidence.

b)did not (completely) contradict the previous data, and did not violate the overall picture of the case, they were precisely a correction, and not a 100% turn.

in)one can continue to recognize the facts (which it is senseless to deny), but to deny their interpretation (intention, motive, purpose).

You can read more here: Reading correction , a thoughtful change (instead of a full turn).

Involvement of a lawyer complicates withdrawal of evidence

In your situation, there is a problem, the signature of a lawyer in the protocol of the procedural action reliably "cements" it, cuts off the option with a further refusal to testify.

That is, such a protocol is evidence that can no longer be challenged on the grounds of inadmissibility. Such a protocol becomes completely protected from the rule Clause 1 Part 2 75 Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is extremely difficult to refuse testimony given with the participation of a lawyer (such a refusal will be critically assessed by the court).

In your situation, the lawyer may have violated the requirement P. 6 The standard, he was obliged to explain the consequences of a guilty plea, but there is no practical point in complaining about a lawyer, it will not do you any good.

Night time

The fact that the interrogation was night time , gives a clue for refusing to testify.

Night actions should be carried out only in cases of urgency (requirement Part 3 164 Code of Criminal Procedure).

This does not mean that the protocol of interrogation can actually be recognized as inadmissible evidence. In practice, the prosecution cannot substantiate the need for night actions with real circumstances, but is limited to general phrases, but the court is always content with them (and takes the side of the prosecution).

That is, one should not overestimate this clue, but still - this somewhat reduces the probative power of this interrogation, and simplifies the refusal of testimony.

How to proceed

It is in my power to clarify the general points, to give exemplary advice (not linked to the specifics of your case unknown to me).

How exactly to refuse testimony - what to refer to, whether it is worth arguing the refusal precisely by the night nature of the interrogation, all this cannot be explained in the format of the answer on the site.

At the moment, any abrupt, hasty actions do not make sense, they are meaningless. The situation develops independently of you.

The next moment when the situation will allow partial control over it (that is, there will be an opportunity for some meaningful action) is the moment of arraignment ( Part 2 172 Code of Criminal Procedure). You must be interrogated immediately after arraignment ( Part 1 173 Code of Criminal Procedure).

This moment is the key to changing the testimony, you should already be prepared for it (think about how to argue the reason for giving the old testimony). You must also have written petitions to the investigator on the conduct of investigative actions (