The assistant prosecutor of the district, participating in the consideration of the case in the district court as the state prosecutor, supported the petition of the lawyer for the appointment of an expert examination and gave an appropriate opinion. The court rejected the application and continued the proceedings. At the end of the judicial investigation, the prosecutor, believing that it was impossible to resolve the issues correctly without conducting an examination, again, but already on the prosecution's side, filed a motion for examination, however, in this case, the court rejected the motion and, having completed the judicial investigation, went on to the parties . In his speech, the prosecutor confirmed his position, speaking in general on those issues that should be covered in the speech. In addition, he indicated that sentencing without examination was not possible. The opinion of the prosecutor was supported by the lawyer, who stated that on the basis of the evidence presented the defendant should be acquitted.
The court ruled.
What is the procedural position of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance? Is the position of the public prosecutor in the course of the judicial investigation and in the debate of the parties correct in this case? What should the prosecutor do after sentencing? Prepare a draft of the relevant legal act.

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2009-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.