Lawyer: “The case of Mikhail Yefremov is not as simple as it seems to be...”
There are at least five critical issues that require careful consideration and on the decisions of which depends the fate of the famous actor.
The lawyer Dmitry Dzhulay complained in his blog about the behavior of his colleagues in relation to the case of Mikhail Yefremov:
"I read here a selection of pathos statements of "star", - God, please forgive me - lawyers about their refusal to defend Mikhail Yfremov (the phrase "star lawyer" itself causes me a mixture of smile and nausea).
And it seems to me that their refusal to defend Yefremov is just a good luck for Yefremov (if anyone offered them anything at all).
I would like to wish good luck to Yefremov’s real lawyers without evaluating the actions of their client.
A lawyer should be a lawyer, not a judge..."
For his part, Dzhulay examined the situation in detail and built the “line of defense” for Yefremov:
“I don’t know whether Yefremov was poisoned with FSB vodka, as some media write, or he himself did this, but in general, there is a lot of questions according to Yefremov’s case.
If to mention it offhand, on top:
1. The state of health of Yefremov. Even if he was in the trash from vodka, he could become worse as a result, for example, of a heart attack, hypertension, etc. He could just lose consciousness.
2. The condition of Yefremov's car. He has a car in 2013. The modern resource of a car is designed for five years. Then it begins to crumble, it is necessary to change a number of parts - starting from the battery and ending with other garbage: bushings, spacers, shock absorbers, pads, bushings, etc. I have myself the off-roader of the 2014 year of production, so I know it. But I am carefully outwatching my car and nevertheless I didn’t notice how my back pads ran out, because the “violin” broke on them - a thin piece of iron that starts to rub and creak when the shoe wears out. I noticed only when the brake fluid started to leak. And he could also get into an accident. I do not think that Yefremov carefully monitors his car. The car could be driven and driven as a result of its malfunction.
3. The condition of the car of the deceased. What kind of monster did he have, that there was not a scratch on Yefremov, and the truck of the deceased was crumpled like paper? I read somewhere that this is a hybrid car, that is, assembled from several different cars. My very first car was like this - "Lada - Eight". Did the car meet the safety requirements? Who and how allowed this Frankenstein into operation? Perhaps due to the fact that this is a hybrid sculpted from several cars, its body did not meet the requirements of rigidity and crumpled so easily?
4. The condition of the road surface and weather conditions. Rain, poor visibility, wet road, damage to asphalt, etc.
5. The cause of death of the victim. At the time of his admission to the hospital, he was still alive. Incorrect actions of doctors are possible. Then Yefremov is guilty of causing grievous bodily, not death.
This is superficial, not knowing the materials of the case.
All this, of course, does not negate the fact that he was a shit and does not absolve him of his guilt, but it can noticeably mitigate it or even lead to a re-qualification (see paragraph 5). And in some cases, and to the fact that there will be only the administration for drunk driving. For example, if he flew into the oncoming lane because he lost consciousness as a result of a malfunction of a car or a damaged road surface.
In addition to the fact that Yefremov was a buzz, there should be a causal connection between his actions and the death of the victim.
If Yefremov flew into the oncoming lane simply because he was drunk - this is one thing. Then the criminal is complete.
If he flew there because his steering wheel got jammed or the car skidded, or he lost consciousness - this is different - then the administrator is for drunk driving and an excuse for a criminal offense.
If the victim had a car that did not meet safety requirements and was put into operation and registered with the traffic police contrary to the standards, then this is different. Then partially the guilt is removed from Yefremov. But only partially.
In short, there are directions to work in and where to dig.
The reason for going to the oncoming lane is of great importance. If it is only alcohol, Yefremov is to blame completely and completely. If something else, then only partially. If the driver died only from injuries, then Yefremov’s fault is completely. If from the wrong actions of doctors, then doctors are to blame for death. Yefremov is guilty only of causing grievous bodily harm. This is another part of the 264 Criminal Code, where the sanction is 2 times lower. If the courier’s car was molded from shit and sticks and should not have been allowed to operate at all, then here, too, part of the blame lies not with Yefremov, but with the traffic police who issued a vehicle registration certificate. And on inspection workers who are bought from us only on the road. And on the mechanics of the company, carrying out pre-trip inspection. Again. Yefremov is not my client, I do not condone him. I reason like a lawyer. These factors do not remove the guilt from him, but can mitigate it. In general, these are the standard directions of the defence in such cases".