So much for Dmitrichenko's expressions of remorse. Interesting how he keeps coming up with new mud to sling on Filin in his desperate attempt to justify a crime he claims he's innocent of. I'm sure attacking the victim in his opening statement will really help his case. <insert sarcasm>
An expression of remorse can be misinterpreted as an admission in court. However, Pavel should be saddened by the injury. This should suffice to show the juror he is not a cold hearted man and has sympathy and empathy.
The strategy derives from his lawyer, presumably, to promote substantive and procedural goals. Pavel may wish to express clearly, succinctly, but briefly, compassion for the frail victim, the pain that he suffered, the loss to the theatre, and that that the dancers missed him generally.
It would be appropriate to explore Sergei, as the victim, to determine the facts of the specific crime, its gravity. and their effect; Achieving this will likely involve Sergei (in person, by video in Germany, or simply through pictures and medical records), his assistant, his wife, his doctor, and experts in chemistry and medicine.
Next, the defendants would set the stage for describing the tension between Sergei and Pavel. This would focus on the conflicting roles Pavel and Sergei held at the school, administration, and unions. Serge headed the school, but had a role with the union. As Union Rep., Pavel conferred with dancers, with Sergei, and with the union directors.
At the same time, Pavel must tactfully bring to light the undue influence Sergei enjoyed and the animus of both Sergei and Pavel deriving from Pavel's union efforts to promote dancer's rights and pay.. Sergei and Pavel disagreed on issues that included dancers' training, unfair roll allocation and money allocation, paltry payment generally, and Sergei's express role in choosing inadequate but favored girls to dance inappropriate rolls. Identifying dancers as paramours, sometimes under pressure, fits this category.
Pavel can explain how his hands became tied. He could have been put into a bind for himself or on behalf of anyone in need of his help. His impasses with Sergei would have left him with the need to explore options of how to deal with fundamental union questions, such as through hierarchy , or by communicating with more capable union reps. and experienced managers. This interaction likely involve an expression of a degree of desperation, if dancers complain of the need to trade favors for roles, or to be pimped out to patrons, or to face diminished roles for not participating. Bringing this up in this way should not be considered a smear campaign. Instead, it gives an idea of the mental state of the participants -rage over the sale of a young girl; helplessness in wrongful casting or in failing to earn enough, based on favoratism. These factors lead to to create a sense of desperation. This evidence would help chip away at the prosecutor's ability to establish that Pavel had the mental state needed to prove that Pavel acted with requisite intent. Instead, this evidence gives Pavel evidence to support his defense, in part, based on his frayed, confused, desperate, and fraying emotional state.
His failure to purchase or modify or use the instruments of harm. which is corroborated by the co-defendants, help Pavel's position totally, The prosecution cannot establish key elements, and proof of intent, malice, or even knowledge become nonexistent. The crux of the case become reckless behavior, at most.
A lawyer may seek a defense of justification or emotional distress, describing an effort to protect dancers preyed upon, failed attempts to achieve any success through legitimate means, or frustration at the abdication of responsibility by those in power. If you knew that an AD brought a vulnerable, innocent to perform on a casting call, your sense of chivalry might lead you to defend the girl, and get a message across. This may be a valid defense under various laws.. Most importantly, It is not an effort solely to sling mud and discredit a respected and injured man, which would otherwise backfire against a sympathetic victim. Rather, it is a defense based on diminished mental capacity, and precludes a finding of malice.
I have no idea what Nicholai Tisskaridze could add, except to bolster the defense, by reiterating that that Sergei managed improperly, by giving improper roles, studios, rehearsal times, and pay; by failing to protect the vulnerable from the vultures .
As far as we know, Pavel lacked control over the other two co-defendants. He did not participate in creating acid. He did not own or work on the aciid, or throw it, and he was not in the car when it was thrown.
Pavel cannot be shown to have asked his co-defendants for any more help than talk to Sergei to pressure Sergei into meeting to resolve problems. Smack talking does not equal evidence that Pavel directed the purchase of a dangerous chemical, ordered it to be modified, and directed it to be used in a dangerous manner, on dangerous part of the body.
The facts that about Sergei's behavior were unfortunate, but don't seem mentioned solely for salacious purposes or to discredit the victim. The seem factors in establishing the fight between the parties, the basis for the fight, and where the state can prove various mental capacities, or the defendants can raise affirmative defenses based on his position and mental capacity.