Plevako Fedor Nikiforovich interesting facts. Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako judicial speeches. Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako

In the history of the legal profession Russian Empire there is no brighter personality than Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako, is a man who left a bright mark in the memory of his contemporaries. He deserved this attitude with his enormous talent, and the name Plevako itself became synonymous with eloquence.

He was born on April 13, 1842 in the city of Troitsk, Orenburg province, into a noble family.

The future lawyer began his career as an intern at the Moscow District Court (from 1862-1864). Since 1866 Plevako F.N. in the sworn profession: assistant sworn attorney, since October 1870 sworn attorney for the district of the Moscow Judicial Chamber.

Soon Plevako F.N. gained fame as an outstanding lawyer and court speaker.

Wit, resourcefulness, the ability to instantly respond to an enemy’s remark, to stun the audience with a cascade of unexpected images and comparisons, and appropriately displayed sarcasm - all these qualities were demonstrated in abundance by Plevako.

A characteristic feature of his speeches was improvisation. Plevako never prepared his speeches, but acted according to the situation based on the audience gathered, the place and time of the case. Journalists were constantly present at the trials with his participation, greedily catching every word he said.

Plevako had the habit of starting all his speeches with the phrase: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” He never changed his words. One day Plevako undertook to defend a man who raped his daughter. The hall was full as usual, everyone was waiting for the lawyer to begin his speech. Is it really from a favorite phrase? Incredible. Plevako stood up and calmly said: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” The hall roared. The judge himself could not stand it either. “What,” he cried, “tell me, what could be worse than this abomination?” “Your honor,” asked Plevako, “what if he raped your daughter?”

The history of legal practice includes many cases involving Plevako, when his intelligence and ingenuity helped achieve desired result. Here are a few of them.

Once Plevako participated in the defense of an old woman, whose guilt was that she had stolen a tin teapot worth 50 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing who would act as a lawyer, decided in advance to paralyze the influence of the defense lawyer’s speech, and he himself expressed everything that could be said in favor of the defendant: poor old lady, the need is bitter, the theft is insignificant, the defendant does not evoke indignation, but only pity. But property is sacred, and if people are allowed to encroach on it, the country will perish. After listening to the prosecutor, Plevako stood up and said: “Russia had to endure many troubles and trials during its more than thousand-year existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia overcame everything, only strengthened and grew from trials. But now, now... the old lady stole a teapot worth 50 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably.

The old woman was acquitted.

Once Plevako defended a man whom a woman of easy virtue accused of rape and tried to get a significant sum, allegedly for the injury he caused. At the same time, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man stated that everything was by good agreement. The last word remained for Plevako.

- Gentlemen of the jury, If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.

The woman jumps up and shouts:

- Not true! I took off my shoes!

There is laughter in the hall.

The defendant was acquitted.

The priest was tried. Guilt was proven. The defendant himself admitted everything and repented.

The defense attorney, Plevako, stood up: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant himself confessed to all the crimes. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: “Will you forgive him his sins!?”

The priest was acquitted.

Plevako’s personality combined integrity and sweep, nihilism and religiosity (Plevako was a lover and connoisseur of church chants), simplicity in everyday life and riotous lordship (Plevako held feasts on specially chartered ships from Nizhny Novgorod to Astrakhan). Taking huge fees from wealthy clients, Plevako defended free of charge the peasants of the village of Lyutorichi who rebelled (in addition, he paid the costs of maintaining all of them for three weeks of the trial).

Plevako's house has always been the center of social and cultural life in Moscow at the end of the 10th century I X early twentieth century.

Plevako died on January 5, 1909 in Moscow. He was buried at the Vagankovskoye cemetery.

Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako, one of the most famous Russian lawyers, whom his contemporaries nicknamed “Moscow Chrysostom”.

Here are several examples of Plevako's famous eloquence.

"20 minutes"

Lawyer F.N. Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman: “What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:

At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

It's already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

The defendant was actually 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch.

So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

"15 years of unfair reproach"

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause.

The man was acquitted.

"Absolution of Sins"

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place. His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: will you forgive him his sin?”

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

30 kopecks

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then logically you must justify the revolutionaries too. The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: “Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials over more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now... The old lady stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably..."

The old woman was acquitted.

I took off my shoes!

In addition to the story about famous lawyer Gobber. He defends a man who has been accused of rape by a prostitute and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff claims that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It’s not true! I took off my shoes!!!”

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

"The Omen"

To the great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the gospel for mass with special accuracy.

Speech famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

The Gruzinsky case.

This case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky District Court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of the premeditated murder of his children’s former tutor, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky’s wife, E.F. Schmidt.

The preliminary investigation established the following. E.F. Schmidt, invited by Gruzinsky last. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife end all relations as a tutor, very quickly became close to his wife with the tutor, and he himself was fired, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of the property belonging to her. Having settled in the estate allocated to her, she invited E.F. to join her as her manager. Schmidt. After the partition, Gruzinsky’s two children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children; the children were told a lot of incriminating things about Gruzinsky. As a result, being constantly in a tense nervous state during meetings with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky killed Schmidt during one of these meetings, shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the prince’s feelings at the time of the crime, his relationship with his wife, and his love for his children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the “clerk from the store”, about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow - “Gently loving father, my husband wants to see his family."

“It was then that the prince, who had not yet left his bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - patients are so sensitive - in the next room a conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they, apparently, are arguing; but their quarrel is so strange: as if they were scolding their own people, and not strangers, then again the speeches are peaceful..., uncomfortable... The prince gets up, gathers his strength..., walks when no one expected him, when they thought that he was chained to the bed... And what. The dear ones scold - they just amuse themselves: Schmidt and the princess are together, it’s not good together...

The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those caught fled, not even thinking of sending help to the sick person. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak... He only accepted misfortune into an open heart so that he would never know separation from him."

Plevako claims that he would not yet have dared to accuse the princess and Schmidt, to condemn them to the prince’s sacrifice, if they had left, had not boasted of their love, had not insulted him, had not extorted money from him, that this “would have been the hypocrisy of the word.”

The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here something irreparable happens. “Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that the children’s underwear is in the princess’s house where he lives, rejects the demand with an oath and sends an answer that without 300 rubles as a deposit he will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for the children. The hanger-on, the hired lover, stands between the father and children and dares to call him a man who is capable of wasting children's underwear, takes care of children and demands a deposit of 300 rubles from the father. Not only the father to whom this is said, but the stranger who hears about this, his hair stands on end!" The next morning the prince saw children in wrinkled shirts. "Father's heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes ok, and - what fatherly love will not do - he went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and drove off... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, for a shirt for his children.”

At night, according to witnesses, Schmidt loaded the guns. The prince had a pistol with him, but this was a habit, not an intention. “I affirm,” said Plevako, “that an ambush awaits him there. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought.”

He goes to Schmidt. “Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach it. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of a scoundrel. Here it is - a place where not only was their present taken away from him, but their past happiness was also taken away, poisoning him with suspicions...

God forbid we experience such moments!

In this mood he drives, approaches the house, knocks on the door. door.

They won't let him in. The footman speaks of the order not to accept.

The prince conveys that he doesn’t need anything other than linen.

But instead of fulfilling his legal demand, instead of finally polite refusal, he hears abuse, abuse from the lips of his wife’s lover, directed towards him, who does not do any insult on his part.

Have you heard about this swearing: “Let the scoundrel leave, don’t you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I’ll shoot.”

The prince's whole being was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so brazenly. The prince could have known that he was armed from his family, who had heard from Tsybulin. And the prince could not help but believe that he was capable of everything evil.”

He shoots. “But listen, gentlemen,” says the defender, “was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment?” “The prince could not cope with these feelings. They are too legal, these are for them” “The husband sees a man ready to desecrate the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy - and, besides them, there is no one to save the right and a shrine. In their souls it is not a vicious feeling of malice that rises, but a righteous feeling of vengeance and defense of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy; if it did not rise, they are despicable people, pimps, sacrileges! "

Concluding his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the force of oppression over him of the soul-disturbing pictures of his family misfortune, you admitted that he cannot be charged with the charges brought against him, and his defender is entirely to blame for his insufficient ability to carry out the task he has taken upon himself...”

The jury returned a not guilty verdict, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

Get started!

From the memories of Plevako... Once a rich Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. But not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

Just win my case. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

What kind of pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

On Sunday, around ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up and let’s go.

Where to this early?

Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant came to pick me up. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. And the time is not right for these things. We drove down some side streets. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We arrived at some warehouse. A little man is standing at the gate. Either a watchman or a team worker. They got off.

Kupchina asks the man:

That's right, your lordship.

We walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves.

The merchant sent the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat and offered to take it off for me. I undress. The merchant went to the corner, took two hefty clubs, gave one of them to me and said:

Get started.

So what to start?

Like what? Break the dishes!

Why hit her? The merchant smiled.

Start, you will understand why... The merchant walked up to the shelves and with one blow broke a bunch of dishes. I hit too. Broke it too. We began to break the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to smash the dishes with such fury with a club that I’m ashamed to even remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild but acute pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I broke everything down to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

Well, did you enjoy it? I had to admit that I received it."

During the lifetime of the great lawyer, many of Plevako’s court speeches became anecdotes and even parables passed from mouth to mouth. And a modern lawyer, not by will, but suddenly flaunts an aphorism, calling for help from a brilliant lawyer.

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako:

“A swear word is an interjection in the folk language”

“Behind the prosecutor is the law, and behind the lawyer is a man with his own destiny, with his own aspirations, and this man climbs onto the lawyer, seeks his protection, and it is very scary to slip with such a burden.”

“There are moments when the soul is indignant at untruth, at the sins of others, indignant in the name of the moral rules in which it believes and lives, and, indignant, strikes the one with whom it is indignant... Thus, Peter strikes a slave who insults his teacher. There is still guilt, incontinence, a lack of love for the fallen, but the guilt is more excusable than the first, for the act is not caused by weakness, not by self-love, but by a jealous love for truth and justice.”

Anecdotes about court cases involving Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako:

* In one case, Plevako took up the defense of a man who was accused of rape. The victim tried to recover a decent amount of money from the unlucky Don Juan as damages. The woman alleged that the accused dragged her into a hotel room and raped her. Man
in response, he retorted that their love affair took place by mutual consent. And now, the brilliant Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako is speaking to the jury:
“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”
The woman immediately jumps up and shouts:
- Not true! I took off my shoes!
There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

* Once Plevako defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place.
His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: will you forgive him his sin?”
There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

* The court was considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet and himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation: “But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you acquit this woman, then logically you should acquit the revolutionaries.”
The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech.
He said: “Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials over more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now... The old lady stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably..."
The old woman was acquitted.

* Plevako had the habit of beginning his speech in court with the phrase: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” And no matter what case the lawyer came across, he did not change his phrase. One day Plevako undertook to defend a man who raped his own daughter. The hall was packed, everyone was waiting for the lawyer to begin his defense speech. Is it really from your favorite phrase? Incredible. But Plevako stood up and calmly said: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.”
And here the judge himself could not stand it. “What,” he cried, “tell me, what could be worse than this abomination?” “Your honor,” asked Plevako, “what if he raped your daughter?”

* Plevako loved to protect women. He stood up for a modest young lady from the provinces who came to the conservatory to study piano. She accidentally stayed in the rooms of "Montenegro" on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, a well-known refuge of vices, not knowing where her cab driver had taken her from the station. And at night, drunken revelers began to break in on her. When the doors began to crack and the girl realized what they were trying to do from her, she jumped out the window from the third floor. Luckily, she fell into a snowdrift, but her arm was broken. The rosy dreams of musical education perished.
The prosecutor took the stupidest position in this process:
- I don’t understand: why were you so scared, throwing yourself out the window? After all, you, mademoiselle, could crash to death!
His doubts were resolved by the angry Plevako.
- Do not understand? “So I’ll explain it to you,” he said. - In the Siberian taiga there is an animal, the ermine, which nature has awarded with fur of the purest whiteness. When he is fleeing persecution, and there is a dirty puddle on his way, the ermine prefers to accept death rather than get dirty in the mud!..”

* One day Plevako came across a case regarding the murder of his wife by a man. The lawyer came to the court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.
- Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!
The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause. The man was acquitted.

* In Kaluga, in the district court, the bankruptcy case of a local merchant was being heard. F.N. was called as the defender of the merchant, who owed a lot of money. Gobber. Let us imagine the then Kaluga of the second half of the 19th century. This is a Russian patriarchal city with great influence Old Believer population. The jurors in the hall are merchants with long beards, philistines in sensitive clothes and intellectuals of good, Christian character. The courthouse was located opposite the cathedral. It was the second week of Great Lent. The whole city gathered to listen to the “star of the legal profession.”
Fyodor Nikiforovich, having studied the case, seriously prepared for a defensive speech, but “for some reason” he was not allowed to speak. Finally, at about 5 pm, the chairman of the court announced:
- The floor belongs to attorney-at-law Feodor Nikiforovich Plevako.
The lawyer leisurely takes his podium, when suddenly at that moment a large bell is rung in the cathedral - for Lenten Vespers. In Moscow style, with a wide sweeping cross, Plevako makes the sign of the cross and reads loudly: “Lord and Master of my life, spirit of idleness... do not give it to me. The spirit of chastity... grant me... and do not condemn my brother...”
It was as if something had pierced everyone present. Everyone stood behind the jury. They stood up and listened to the prayer and the judicial ranks. Quietly, almost in a whisper, as if he were in a church, Fyodor Nikolaevich made a small speech, not at all the one he had prepared: “Now the priest has left the altar and, bowing to the ground, reads a prayer that the Lord will give us the strength “not to condemn our brother.” . And at this moment we gathered precisely in order to condemn and condemn our brother. Gentlemen of the jury, go to the deliberation room and there in silence ask your Christian conscience, is your brother, whom you are judging, guilty? The voice of God through your Christian conscience will tell you of his innocence. Give him a fair sentence."
The jury deliberated for five minutes, no more. They returned to the hall, and the foreman announced their decision:
- No, not guilty.

* Lawyer Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman: “What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:
- At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:
- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?
The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:
- It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.
He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.
The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:
- The defendant was really 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate trader have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?”
The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Plevako especially loved to protect women. Once he stood up for a modest girl who came from the provinces to study piano at the conservatory. The cab driver took her to the Montenegro rooms on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, a well-known refuge of vices, but she thought it was an ordinary hotel.
At night, drunken revelers began to break in on her, and the girl, hearing the sound of breaking doors and guessing that she was being harassed, threw herself out the window from the third floor. Fortunately, she did not fall to death, as she fell into a snowdrift, but she broke her arm, and she had to give up her dreams of musical education.

The prosecutor in this trial expressed malicious doubt: “I don’t understand,” he said, turning to the girl, “why were you so scared, throwing yourself out the window? After all, you, mademoiselle, could have fallen to your death!” To this, the angry Plevako immediately replied: “Don’t you understand? So I’ll explain it to you now! In Siberia, in the taiga, there is an animal called the ermine, which is blessed by nature with the purest white fur. When he runs from pursuit, and a dirty puddle gets in his way, the stoat prefers to accept death rather than get dirty in the mud!

(1842-1908)

In the entire history of the Russian legal profession, there has not been a more popular person in it than F.N. Gobber. Both specialists, legal scholars, and ordinary people, the common people, valued him above all lawyers as a “great orator”, a “genius of speech”, a “senior hero” and even a “metropolitan of advocature”. His very name became a household name as a synonym for a top-class lawyer: “I’ll find another “Gobber,” they said and wrote without any irony.” Letters to him were addressed as follows: “Moscow. Novinsky Boulevard, own house. To the main defender of Plevaka." Or simply: “Moscow. Fyodor Nikiforovich."

The literature about Plevako is more extensive than about any other Russian lawyer, a major two-volume volume of his speeches has been published, but so far his life, work and creative heritage have not yet been properly studied. For example, his speeches at political processes. About how little Plevako is known even by his admirers among specialists - today's lawyers,lawyers, says this fact. In 1993, a collection of his speeches was published in 30,000 copies. The annotation to the collection (P. 4) states that “speeches, mostly previously unpublished,” are being published, and the responsible editor of the collection, the famous lawyer Henry Reznik, specially noted Plevako’s famous speech at the trial of the peasants. Luthori: “Due to the fact that this speech was published, it is not included in this collection” (p. 25). Meanwhile all 39 speeches, included “in this collection” were published in a two-volume edition of 1909-1910. and now reprinted from there without reference to the two-volume set. By the way, G.M. Reznik refers in the 1993 collection (repeatedly: pp. 33, 37, 39) to short essay about Plevako from the book by V.I. Smolyarchuk “Giants and sorcerers of words”, not knowing that Smolyarchuk published a separate (ten times larger) book “Lawyer Fedor Plevako”...

Fyodor Nikiforovich was born on April 13, 1842 in the city of Troitsk, Orenburg province (now Chelyabinsk region). His parents were a member of the Trinity Customs, court councilor Vasily Ivanovich Spit-wah from the Ukrainian nobles and the Kyrgyz serf Ekaterina Stepanova, with whom Plevak had four children (two of them died as infants), but did not legitimize the marriage. How the illegitimate future “genius of the word” received a patronymic and surname ( Nikiforov) by the name of Nikifor - godfather his older brother. Later, he entered the university with his father’s surname Plevak, and after graduating from the university he added the letter “o” to it, and called himself with an emphasis on this letter: Plevako. “So,” the biographer of Fyodor Nikiforovich concludes on this occasion, “he has three surnames: Nikiforov, Plevak and Plevako.”

In Troitsk from 1849 to 1851, Fedor studied at parish and district schools, and in the summer of 1851 the Plevako family moved to Moscow. Here

Fyodor Nikiforovich will now live his whole life. In the fall of 1851, he began studying at a commercial school.

The Moscow Commercial School on Ostozhenka was then considered exemplary. Even members of the royal family, upon arrival in Moscow, honored him with a visit and tested the students’ knowledge. Fedor and his older brother Dormidont studied well; by the end of the first year of study, their names were included on the “golden board” of the school. At the beginning of the second year, Prince Peter of Oldenburg (nephew of two tsars - Alexander I and Nicholas I) visited the school. He was told about Fedor’s ability to solve complex problems with three-digit and even four-digit numbers quickly and verbally. The prince himself tested the boy's abilities, praised him and two days later sent him candy as a gift. And on New Year’s Day, 1853, Vasily Plevak was told that his sons would be expelled from the school as... illegitimate. Fyodor Nikiforovich will remember this humiliation for the rest of his life. Many years later, he would write about it in his autobiography: “We were declared unworthy of the very school that praised us for our successes and flaunted the exceptional ability of one of us in mathematics. God forgive them! They really didn’t know what these narrow-minded people were doing when they performed human sacrifice.”

In the fall of 1853, thanks to their father’s long efforts, Fedor and Dormidont were admitted to the 1st Moscow Gymnasium on Prechistenka - immediately into the 3rd grade. While studying at the gymnasium, Fyodor buried his father and brother, who did not live to be 20 years old. In the spring of 1859, he graduated from high school and entered the law faculty of Moscow University. As a student, he translated into Russian the “Course of Roman Civil Law” by the outstanding German lawyer Georg Friedrich Puchta (1798-1846), which he later thoroughly commented on and published at his own expense.

In 1864, Plevako graduated from the university with a candidate of laws diploma, but did not immediately decide on the calling of a lawyer: for more than six months he served as a lawyer. public principles as an intern at the Moscow District Court, waiting for a suitable vacancy. When, according to the “Regulations” of October 19, 1865 on the entry into force of the Judicial Statutes of 1864, the sworn legal profession began to form in Russia in the spring of 1866, Plevako was one of the first in Moscow to sign up as an assistant to the sworn attorney M.I. Dobrokhotov. With the rank of assistant, he managed to prove himself as a gifted lawyer in criminal trials, among which the case of Alexei Maruev on January 30, 1868 in the Moscow District Court stood out. Maru ev was accused of two forgeries. Plevako defended him. Fyodor Nikiforovich lost this case (his client was found guilty and exiled to Siberia), but Plevako’s defensive speech - the first of his surviving speeches - has already shown his strength, especially in the analysis of witness slander. “They,” Plevako said about the witnesses in the Maruev case, “do not respond with oblivion, but one attributes to the other what the other, for his part, attributes to the first.<...>The contradictions are so strong, they mutually destroy themselves on the most essential issues! What kind of faith can there be in them? ?!»

On September 19, 1870, Plevako was admitted to the sworn attorney district of the Moscow Court Chamber, and from that time began his brilliant ascent to the heights of lawyer's fame. True, just two years later it almost ended due to his political “unreliability.”

The fact is that 8 December 1872, Head of the Moscow Provincial Gendarmerie Directorate, Lieutenant General I.A. Slezkine reported to the manager of the III department A.F. Shultz that a “secret legal society” has been discovered in Moscow, created with the goal of “introducing students and young people in general to revolutionary ideas”, “finding ways to print and lithograph prohibited books and distributing them, and having constant relations with foreign figures.” " According to agent data, the society consisted of “law students of all courses who had declared themselves in favor of socialism, who completed the course and remained at the university, candidates of law, sworn attorneys and their assistants, as well as former students, mostly lawyers.” “At present,” reported the chief of the Moscow gendarmerie, “the said society already has up to 150 active members.<...>Among the main ones is attorney-at-law Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako, who replaced Prince Alexander Urusov among the students,” and then a number of other names are listed: S.A. Klyachko and N.P. Tsakni (members of the revolutionary populist society of the so-called “Chaikovites”),V.A. Goltsev (later a prominent public figure, editor of the magazine “Russian Thought”), V.A. Wagner (later a major scientist-psychologist), etc. .

Seven months later, on July 16, 1873, I.A. Slezkine notifiedA.F. Schultz that “the most strict supervision is carried out over the named persons and all possible measures are used to obtain factual data, which could serve as a guarantee for the detection of both the persons who made up the secret legal society and all its actions” . As a result, it was not possible to find such data “that could serve as a guarantee...”. The case of the “secret legal society” was closed, its alleged “real members” escaped reprisals. But from that time until 1905, Plevako pointedly avoided “politics.” The only one of the luminaries of the domestic legal profession, he never acted as a defender at political trials in the strict sense of the word, where populists, Narodnaya Volya, Social Democrats, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets, etc. were tried. He agreed to speak several times only at trials in cases of various kinds of “unrest” with political overtones.

The first of these cases for him was the so-called. “Okhotnoryad case” of 1878 about students who staged a demonstration of solidarity with political exiles in Moscow, were beaten by the police and put on trial for resisting the beating. The authorities classified the case as “street riots” and entrusted it to the magistrate’s court. The political nature of the case was revealed at the trial by the accused (among them was the famous populist, since 1881 an agent of the Executive Committee of the People's Will, P.V. Gortynsky). They were actively supported by attorney at law N.P. Shubinsky is Plevako’s colleague in the legal profession and (in the future) in membership in the Octobrist Party. Fyodor Nikiforovich spoke at this trial carefully, knowing thatnot only the courtroom (in the Sukharev Tower), but also the approaches to it are filled with young radicals, and the alleys and streets around the tower are filled with police detachments. He stood up much more boldly for the rebel peasants in the sensational Luthorish affair.

In the spring of 1879, the peasants of the village. The Lutorians of the Tula province rebelled against their enslavement by a neighboring landowner, the Moscow provincial leader of the nobility in 1875-1883. Count A.V. Bobrinsky (from the Bobrinsky family - from the illegitimate son of Empress Catherine II A.G. Bobrinsky). The riot was suppressed by military forces, and its “inciters” (34 people) were put on trial on charges of “resisting the authorities.” The case was considered by the Moscow Judicial Chamber with co-representatives in December 1880. Plevako took upon himself not only the defense of all the accused, but also “the costs of their maintenance during the three weeks of the trial.” His defensive speech (1.300-312) sounded like a formidable accusation against those in power in Russia. Having defined the situation of the peasants after the reform of 1861 as “half-starved freedom,” Plevako, with figures and facts in hand, showed that in Lyutorichi life had become “a hundred times harder than pre-reform slavery.” The predatory exactions from the peasants outraged him so much that he exclaimed to gr. Bobrinsky and his manager A.K. Fischer: “It’s a shame for the times in which such people live and act!” As for accusing his clients of inciting a riot, Plevako told the judges: “There were instigators. I found them and hand them over to your justice. They- instigators, They- instigators, They- the cause of all causes. Hopeless poverty<...>lawlessness, shameless exploitation, leading everyone and everything to ruin - these are the instigators!”

After Plevako’s speech in the courtroom, according to an eyewitness, “applause thundered from excited, shocked listeners.” The court was forced to acquit 30 of the 34 defendants. A.F. Koni believed that Plevako’s speech at this trial “was, according to the conditions and mood of that time, a civic feat.”

Plevako spoke equally boldly and loudly at the trial of the participants in the historical Morozov strike of workers of the Nikolskaya manufactory of the Morozov manufacturers at the station. Orekhovo (now Orekhovo-Zuevo, Moscow region). This was the largest and most organized strike at that time (“a terrible riot of tens of thousands of workers”) with 7 until January 17, 1885, it was partly political in nature: it was led by the revolutionary workers P.A. Moiseenko, B. C. Volkov and A.I. Ivanov, and among the demands of the strikers presented to the governor was “a complete change in the terms of employment between the owner and the workers according to the published state law" 1 . The case of the strike was heard at two trials in the Vladimir District Court in February (about 17 accused) and in May 1886 (about 33 more). At the first of them, on February 7, the main accused - Moiseenko and Volkov - were defended by Plevako.

And this time, as in the Lutorian case, Plevako justified the defendants, qualifying their actions as compelled“protest against lawless tyranny” on the part of the exploiters of the people and the authorities behind them (1.322-325). “The factory administration, contrary to the general law and the terms of the contract,” emphasized Fyodor Nikiforovich, “does not heat the establishment, the workers stand at the machine at 10-15 degrees cold. Do they have the right to leave, refuse to work in the presence of lawless actions of the owner, or should they freeze to death as a hero? The owner, contrary to the contract, does not provide work as agreed, pays not according to conditions, but arbitrarily. Should the workers remain stupidly silent, or can they separately and together refuse to work outside the terms? I believe that the law protects legal interests of the owner, against the lawlessness of the workers, and does not take under its protection every owner in all his arbitrariness.” Having outlined the situation of the Morozov workers, Plevako, according to the memoirs of P.A. Moiseenko, uttered words that were not included in the published text of his speech: “If we are indignant when reading a book about black slaves, then now we are faced with white slaves.”

The court heeded the defense's arguments. Even Moiseenko and Volkov, the recognized leaders of the strike, were sentenced to only 3 months of arrest, 13 people were sentenced to arrest from 7 days to 3 weeks, and 2 were acquitted.

Subsequently, Plevako acted as a defense attorney at least twice more in cases of labor “unrest” with political overtones. In December 1897, the Moscow Court Chamber considered the case of factory workers N.N. Konshina in Serpukhov. Hundreds of them rebelled against the inhumane working and living conditions, began to destroy the apartments of the factory management and were pacified only by armed force, while providing “resistance to the authorities.” Plevako here raised and explained a very important - both legally and politically - question about the relationship between personal and collective responsibility for a judicial case (I. 331-332). “A lawless and intolerable act has been committed,” he said. “The crowd was the culprit. But it is not the crowd that is being judged. There are several dozen faces seen in the crowd. This is also a kind of crowd, but different, small; This one was formed by mass instincts, this one by investigators and prosecutors.<...>All the predicates, the most scathingly depicting the riot of the masses, were attributed to the crowd, the crowd, and not to individual people. But we judge individuals: the crowd has left.” And further: “The crowd is a building, people are bricks. The temple of God and the prison, the dwelling of the outcasts, are built from the same bricks.<...>The crowd is infectious. Persons entering it become infected. Beating them is like fighting an epidemic by scourging the sick.” .

As a result, the court determined minimum sentences for the defendants in this case as well.

As for the trial in the Moscow Court Chamber in the spring of 1904 in the case of worker “unrest” at the Moscow manufactory of A.I. Baranov, then they introduced into this process political meaning defenders, liberal representatives of the so-called. “young lawyer”: N.K. Muravyov, N.V. Teslenko, V.A. Maklakov, M.L. Mandelstam. Together with them, at their invitation, Plevako defended the workers. Unlike his colleagues, who tried to turn the trial into “the first lesson in political literacy, a school of political education” for the defendants, Fyodor Nikiforovich spoke, according to Mandelstam’s memoirs, outside of politics: “His defense was not revolutionary, but “ universal human notes. He was not addressing the working masses. He spoke to the privileged classes, convincing them, out of a sense of philanthropy, to extend a helping hand to the workers.” It even seemed to Mandelstam that Plevako spoke sluggishly, that he was “tired of life,” “the eagle is no longer spreading its wings.” But just six months later, in November of the same 1904, Plevako again looked like an “eagle”.

This time the trial was clearly political, although without the participation of any revolutionaries, and the accusation itself was formulated apolitically: “slander.” The editor-publisher of the newspaper “Grazhdanin”, Prince, appeared as a defendant before the St. Petersburg District Court. V.P. Metsersky, the plaintiff was the Oryol leader of the nobility M.A. Stakhovich ( close friend family of A.N. Tolstoy), and Plevako andV.A. Maklakov acted as attorneys for the plaintiff, supporting the prosecution. The essence of the matter was that Stakhovich wrote an article protesting the torture to which the police subjected their victims. This article, after it was rejected by three censorship bodies, was published in the illegal magazine P.B. Struve “Liberation” with the caveat: “without the consent of the author.” Meshchersky, in No. 28 of his newspaper for 1904, angrily cursed Stakhovich and his “intention to cast an accusatory shadow on the administrative authorities,” “collaboration with a revolutionary publication,” “an insult to patriotism, almost equal to writing sympathetic telegrams to the Japanese government” (at that time There was a Russo-Japanese War).

Plevako literally glorified Stakhovich, emphasizing “all the purity of intentions, all the correctness of the means by which a true citizen of his country fights untruth, publicizes it and calls for correction,” and condemned (in solidarity with Maklakov) Meshchersky’s “police understanding of life” . He ranked Stakhovich in the “camp” of Minin and Pozharsky, and Meshchersky in the “camp” of Malyuta Skuratov (I. 289). Plevako’s final words about Meshchersky sounded like an anathema: “He will not prove to honestly thinking Russian people that the Stakhovichs are undesirable and only the Meshcherskys are needed. Meshchersky alone is enough for us, God forbid there are more people like Stakhovich!<...>Evaluate the prince’s actions, and let them add the name of the slanderer to his ancient name!” (I. 293).

The speeches of Plevako and Maklakov on the Meshchersky case made all the more impression that all educated Russia knew then: Prince Meshchersky not only symbolizes extreme reaction, he - despite all the odiousness of his reputation in society 2 - is reputed to be the “mentor of two sovereigns” (Alexander III and Nicholas II), who favored Meshchersky and subsidized his newspaper as the “royal organ”, “the desktop newspaper of the tsars.” The court (we must give it its due) did not politicize: it found the tsar’s “mentor” guilty of slander and sentenced him to two weeks’ arrest in the guardhouse.

Plevako’s speeches at political (to one degree or another) processes make it possible to see in him a “democrat-raznochintsy”, as A.F. called him. Horses, especially since Fyodor Nikiforovich himself directly said about himself: "I man of the 60s." But, I think, V.I. Smolyarchuk exaggerated, believing that not only “by his character,” but also “by his established worldview,” Plevako was a “deep democrat.” Koni did not mean Plevako’s worldview, but his democratic-raznochin “habitus,” the responsiveness and simplicity of his communication “in all layers of Russian society.” Plevako’s ideological democracy was not deep, but rather broad, not so much conscious as spontaneous. Illegitimate child of mixed marriage, an “outcast”, in his own words, he became an actual state councilor (4th class of the Table of Ranks, corresponding to the military rank of major general), gained access to higher spheres, was friends with such bison from powerful of the world, as Comptroller General T.I. Filippov (“a cynic in morality and vile servility to those who could be useful to him”) and a fierce hater of any democracy, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev.

However, Plevako’s friendship with Pobedonostsev had no ideological support. A.V. Volsky saw Plevako’s own “evil” epigram on Pobedonostsev, rewritten in his own hand:

Pobedonostsev for the Synod,

Obedonostsev at court,

Bedonosev for the people And he is informer everywhere

Pobedonostsev, for his part, was not in vain “when he saw a photograph of Plevako with young lawyers (from the “unreliable” ones. -AND.T.), said: “They should all be hanged, not photographed.”

Avoiding after the case of 1872-1873. about the “secret legal society” and before the 1905 revolution of all “politics”, Plevako clearly showed himself not as a democrat, but as a HUMANIST. Convinced that “the life of one person is more valuable than any reforms” (II. 9), he advocated impartial justice: “Before the court, everyone is equal, even if you are a generalissimo!” (1.162). At the same time, he considered mercy necessary and natural for justice: “The word of the law is reminiscent of a mother’s threats to her children. As long as there is no guilt, she promises cruel punishments to the disobedient son, but as soon as the need for punishment arises, the love of the mother’s heart looks for every reason to soften the necessary punishment” (1.155). But it was precisely as a humanist and lover of truth that he denounced before the court any abuses, whether committed by spiritual tycoons “under the cover of a cassock and a monastery” or by “dogs” of police detectives under the command of the authorities “Atta him!” (I. 161, 175; II. 63).

The now forgotten democratic poet Leonid Grave (1839-1891) ) dedicated the poem “In a crowd of fools, soulless and cold” to Fyodor Nikiforovich with the following lines:

Look around: the whole world is shackled by evil,

Enmity has reigned in the hearts of people for centuries...

Don't be afraid of them! With a fearless brow, go to fight for human rights.

Let's return to the topic of politics in Plevako's life and work. The Tsar's manifesto of October 17, 1905 instilled in him the illusion of close civil liberties in Russia. He rushed into politics with youthful enthusiasm: he asked his lawyer colleague V.A. Maklakov to “enroll” him in the Constitutional Democratic Party. He (who was one of the founders and leaders of the party) refused, reasonably considering that “Pleva-ko and Political Party, party discipline are incompatible concepts.” Then Plevako joined the Octobrist party. From them he was elected to III State Duma, where, with the naivety of an amateur politician, he called on Duma members to replace “songs about freedom with songs of freeworkers erecting the building of law and freedom" (this speech on November 20, 1907 was his first and last Duma speech: 1.367-373). As is clear from the memoirs of N.P. Karabchevsky, Plevako even considered the project of “modifying the royal title in order to emphasize that Nicholas II is no longer the absolute Russian Tsar by God’s grace, but a limited monarch,” but did not dare to declare this from the Duma rostrum.

The Duma (it turned out to be the dying) turn of Plevako’s career puzzled and upset his colleagues, students, and friends as a “misunderstanding.” Today, lawyer GL4. Reznik is trying to dispute this fact, because, they say, “there are no (? - N.T.) reasons to suspect the insincerity of the firm (? - I.T.) in the convictions of a liberal,” which was Plevako. Alas, V.A. Maklakov and N.P. Karabchevsky knew better than Reznik that it was Fyodor Nikiforovich’s lack of firmness in his political convictions.

So, in the sphere of politics Plevako did not become any noticeable figure, but in the sphere of law he is truly great as a lawyer and court speaker, who shone in trials mainly in criminal (and partly in civil) cases.

Plevako was a unique speaker - as they say, from God. True, unlike other luminaries of the sworn legal profession - such as A.I. Urusov, S.A. Andreevsky, N.P. Karabchevsky (but comparable to V. D. SpasOvich and P. A. Aleksandrov), he was poor in external data. “The high-cheekbone, angular face of the Kalmyk type with wide-set eyes, with unruly strands of long black hair could be called ugly if it were not illuminated by the inner beauty that showed through in the general animated expression, then in a kind, lion-like smile, then in the fire and sparkle of speaking eyes. His movements were uneven and sometimes awkward; The lawyer's tailcoat sat awkwardly on him, and his lisping voice seemed to run counter to his calling as an orator. But in this voice there were notes of such strength and passion that it captured the listener and conquered him.”

The secret of Plevako’s oratorical irresistibility was not only and not even so much in his mastery of words. “His main strength lay in his intonation, in the irresistible, downright magical infectiousness of the feeling with which he knew how to ignite the listener. Therefore, his speeches on paper do not even remotely convey their amazing power.” The aphorism of F. La Rochefoucauld is very suitable for Plevako: “In the sound of the voice, in the eyes and in the whole appearance of the speaker there is no less eloquence than in the choice of words.”

Plevako never wrote the texts of his speeches in advance, but after the trial, at the request of newspaper reporters or close friends, sometimes (“when he was not lazy”) he wrote down the speech that had already been delivered. These records undoubtedly belong to best texts in his two-volume book.

The spitting speaker was emphatically (like no other) individual-alen. Far from being as erudite as Spasovich or Urusov (and later 0.0. Gruzenberg), he was strong in his everyday ingenuity and acumen, the “nationality” of the origins of his eloquence. Inferior to Spasovich in the depth of scientific analysis, Karabchevsky in the logic of evidence, Aleksandrov in daring, Urusov and Andreevsky in the harmony of words, he surpassed them all in infectious sincerity, emotional power, and oratorical ingenuity. In general, according to the authoritative opinion of A.F. Koni, “in Plevako, through the external appearance of a defender, a tribune acted,” who, however, perfectly mastered the threefold calling of defense: “to convince, to touch, to appease.” “He was a master of beautiful images, cascades of loud phrases, deft lawyer’s tricks, witty antics that unexpectedly came to his mind and often saved clients from threatened punishment.” How unpredictable Plevako’s defensive efforts were can be seen from his two speeches, which were once legendary: in defense of a priest who had been defrocked for theft, and of an old woman who had stolen a tin teapot.

The first case from the words of the famous Russian and Soviet lawyer N.V. Commodov was artistically described by the no less famous investigator and writer, the “classic” Soviet detective L.R. Sheinin. Three decades later, already in our time, ML. Aeschinsky, citing the fact that the late Sheinin once “told” him this story, verbatim reproduced Sheinin’s publication (which took 15 pages) in his own essay, as if on his own.

The essence of the case with the stealing priest was also briefly outlined by V.V. Veresaev and V.I. Smolyarchuk. The defendant's guilt in the theft of a church hard money has been proven. He admitted it himself. The witnesses were all against him. The prosecutor made a murderous speech for the defendant. Plevako, who made a bet with the manufacturer and philanthropist S.T. Morozov (with witness Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko) that he would contain his defense speech in one minute and the priest would be acquitted, remained silent throughout the judicial investigation, did not ask any of the witnesses a single question. When his moment came, all he said, addressing the jury with his characteristic sincerity: “Gentlemen, jurors! For more than twenty years, my client has absolved you of your sins. Let him go once, Russian people!” The jury acquitted the priest.

In the case of an old woman who stole a teapot, the prosecutor, wanting to paralyze in advance the effect of Plevako’s defensive speech, himself expressed everything possible in favor of the accused (she herself is poor, the theft is trivial, I feel sorry for the old woman), but emphasized that property is sacred and cannot be encroached upon on it, because it holds up the entire well-being of the country, “and if people are allowed to ignore it, the country will perish.” Ple-vako stood up: “Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials during its more than thousand-year existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsy, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger from the trials and grew. But now, now... The old woman stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish from this.” The old woman was acquitted.

Here's a little-known case. A certain landowner ceded part of his land to the peasants by agreement with them - because they laid a convenient road from his estate to the highway. But the landowner died, and his heir refused to accept the agreement and again took the land from the peasants. The peasants rebelled, set fire to the landowner's estate, and slaughtered the cattle. The rioters were put on trial. Plevako undertook to protect them. The trial was quick. The prosecutor hurled thunder and lightning at the accused, but Plevako remained silent. When the floor was given to the defense, Fyodor Nikiforovich addressed the jurors (entirely from local landowners) with the following words: “I do not agree with Mr. Prosecutor and I find that he demands extremely lenient sentences. For one defendant he demanded fifteen years of hard labor, but I think this period should be doubled. And add five years to this... And to this...To once and for all wean men from believing the word of a Russian nobleman!”The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

A number of criminal trials with the participation of Plevako acquired, mainly thanks to his speeches, a nationwide resonance. The first of these in time was the Mitrofanievsky trial, that is, the trial of the abbess of the Serpukhov Metropolitan Monastery Mitrofaniya, which aroused interest even in Europe. In the world, Baroness Praskovya Grigorievna Rosen, daughter of the hero Patriotic War 1812 and governor in the Caucasus 1831-1837. Infantry General and Adjutant General G.V. Rosena (1782-1841), a maid of honor of the royal court, she became a nun in 1854, and from 1861 ruled over the Serpukhov monastery. Over the course of 10 years, the abbess, relying on her connections and proximity to the court, stole more than 700 thousand rubles through fraud and forgery (a colossal amount at that time).

The investigation into the Mitrofaniya case was started in St. Petersburg by A.F. Koni (at that time the prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court), and she was tried on October 5-15, 1874 in the Moscow districtreallynew court chaired by P.A. Deyer. Plevako, as the attorney for the victims, became the main accuser of the abbess and her monastery assistants at the trial. Confirming the conclusions of the investigation and refuting the arguments of the defense, he stated: “A traveler walking past the high walls of the master’s monastery devoutly crosses himself on the golden crosses of the temples and thinks that he is walking past the house of God, and in this house the morning ringing woke up the abbess and her servants not for prayer, but for dark deeds! Instead of a temple - a stock exchange, instead of praying people - swindlers, instead of prayer - exercises in drawing up promissory notes, instead of deeds of goodness - preparations for false testimony; this is what was hidden behind the walls.<...>Build higher, higher the walls of the communities entrusted to you, so that the world cannot see the deeds that you do under the cover of your cassock and monastery!” (II. 62-63). The court found Abbess Mitrofania guilty of fraud and forgery and sentenced her to exile to Siberia.

At the sensational trial of P.P. Jocks in the Moscow District Court on March 22-23, 1880. Plevako shone in his more familiar role as a defender of the defendant. Here - not in fact, but in the circumstances surrounding it - a political aspect was partly visible. The fact is that the 18-year-old noblewoman Praskovya Kachka was the stepdaughter of the populist propagandist N.E. Bitmid and rotated in the “edge” environment. March 15, 1879 on youth party(gathering?) in the apartment of a prominent populist P.V. Gortynsky (who was tried in the Okhotnoryad case in 1878), Kachka shot her lover, student Bronislav Bayrashevsky, and tried to kill herself, but failed. The court classified the case as a murder of jealousy.

Plevako, having given a psychologically masterful analysis of everything the accused had experienced over her 18 years (orphan childhood, “physical ill health,” deceived love), appealed to the mercy of the jury: “Take a closer look at this 18-year-old woman and tell me what Is she an infection that must be destroyed, or an infected one that must be spared?<...>Judge not with hatred, but with love, if you want the truth. Let it be happy expression psalmist, truth and mercy will meet in your decision, truth and love will kiss!” (I. 43).

The court decided to place Kachka in a hospital for treatment. The treatment has probably startedto herfor good. Five years later, V.G. Korolenko saw her on the pier in Nizhny Novgorod among the passengers - “rouged and powdered,” cheerful.

Perhaps Plevako found himself in his most difficult position as a defense attorney at the trial of Alexander Bartenev in the Warsaw District Court on February 7, 1891, but it was here that he gave one of his most brilliant speeches, which is invariably included in all collections of samples Russian judicial eloquence.

On June 19, 1890, Cornet Bartenev shot and killed Maria Wisnowska, a popular actress of the Imperial Warsaw Theater, in his apartment. The investigation established that the killer and his victim loved each other. Bartenev was jealous of Visnovskaya, and she did not really believe in his love. According to Bartenev, confirmed by Visnovskaya’s notes, on the last evening they agreed to die: he would kill her, and then himself. Bartenev, however, having shot her, did not shoot himself. He not only did not deny the fact of the murder, but also voluntarily reported it to his superiors immediately after the incident.

Plevako, at the very beginning of his three-hour (!) defensive speech (I. 136-156), explained what the defense was seeking - not to acquit the defendant, but only to soften “the measure of punishment deserved by the defendant.” Not allowing himself to cast the slightest shadow on Visnovskaya’s reputation (although even the accuser spoke about “dark spots” in her life), Fyodor Nikiforovich very subtly “anatomized” Bartenev’s crime: “Bartenev completely went to Visnovskaya. She was his life, his will, his law. If she did, he would sacrifice his life.<...>But she told him to kill her before killing himself. He carried out a terrible order. But as soon as he did this, he was lost: the owner of his soul was gone, there was no longer that living force that, of its own accord, could push him to do good and evil.” At the conclusion of his speech, Plevako exclaimed: “Oh, if the dead could cast their vote on matters that concern them, I would give Bartenev’s case to Visnovskaya for trial!”

Bartenev was sentenced to 8 years of hard labor, but Alexander III replaced his hard labor with a demotion to a soldier.

Perhaps the greatest public outcry of all the criminal cases involving Plevako was caused by the unusual case of S.I., which excited the whole of Russia. Mamontov in the Moscow District Court with jurors on July 31, 1900 Savva Ivanovich Mamontov (1841 - 1918) - an industrial magnate, the main shareholder of a railway and two factory companies - was one of the most popular philanthropists in Russia. His Abramtsevo estate near Moscow was an important center of Russian artistic life in the 1870s–1890s. I.E. met and worked here. Repin, V.I. Surikov, V.A. Serov, V.M. Vasnetsov, V.D. Polenov, K.S. Stanislavsky, F.I. Chaliapin. In 1885, Mamontov founded the Moscow Private Russian Opera at his own expense, where he first showed himself as the great singer Chaliapin, and N.I. shone with him. Zabela-Vrubel, N.V. Salina, V.A. Lossky and others. In the fall of 1899, the Russian public was shocked by the news of the arrest and imminent trial of Mamontov, his two sons and brother on charges of embezzlement (“theft and misappropriation”) of 6 million rubles from the funds of the Moscow-Yaroslavl-Arkhangelsk region. Gaelic Railway.

The trial in Mamontov’s case was conducted by the Chairman of the Moscow District Court N.V. Davydov (1848-1920) - an authoritative lawyer, close friend and consultant of L.N. Tolstoy, who suggested plots to the writerplays "The Living Corpse" and "The Power of Darkness". Accused by fellow prosecutor of the Moscow Judicial Chamber P.G. Kurlov (future commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes). Among the witnesses were the writer N.G. Gagarin-Mikhailovsky (author of the tetralogy “Tema’s Childhood”, “Gymnasium Students”, “Students”, “Engineers”) and director of the Private Opera K.S. Winter - Native sister opera prima donna T.S. Ayubatovich and two revolutionary populists, convictsB. C. and O.S. Ayubatovich.

Protect his friends V.I. Surikov and VD. The Polenovs were invited by Plevako. The other accused were defended by three more masters of the domestic bar, N.P. Karabchevsky, V.A. Maklakov and N.P. Shubinsky.

The central event of the trial was Plevako’s defensive speech (II. 325-344). Fyodor Nikiforovich, with a trained eye, immediately identified the weakness of the main point of the accusation. “After all, theft and appropriation,” he said, “leave traces: either Savva Ivanovich’s past is full of insane luxury, or the present is full of unjust self-interest. And we know that no one pointed this out. When, searching for what was appropriated, judicial branch with speed caused by the importance of the matter, she entered his house and began to look for illegally stolen wealth, she found 50 rubles in her pocket, an out-of-use railway ticket, a hundred-mark German bank note.” The defense lawyer showed how grandiose and patriotic was the accused’s plan to lay railway from Yaroslavl to Vyatka to “revive the forgotten North”, and how tragically, due to the “bad choice” of the plan’s executors, the generously funded operation turned into losses and collapse. Mamontov himself went bankrupt. “But think about it, what happened here? - asked Plevako. — Crime of a predator or miscalculation? Robbery or blunder? The intention to harm the Yaroslavl road or a passionate desire to save its interests?

Plevako’s final words were, as always, as resourceful as they were effective: “If you believe the spirit of the times, then - “woe to the vanquished!” But let the pagans repeat this vile expression, at least according to the metric she was considered Orthodox or Reformed. And we will say: “mercy for the unfortunate!”

The court recognized the fact of embezzlement. But all the defendants were acquitted. Newspapers printed Plevako’s speech, quoted it, commented: “Pleva-ko freed!”

Fyodor Nikiforovich himself explained the secrets of his success as a defender very simply. The first secret: he was always literally filled with a sense of responsibility to his clients. “There is a huge difference between the position of the prosecutor and the defense attorney,” he said at the trial of S.I. Mamontova. “Behind the prosecutor there is a silent, cold, unshakable law, behind the defender there are real people. They rely on their defenders, climb onto their shoulders and... it’s scary to slip with such a burden!” (II. 342). In addition, Plevako (perhaps more than anyone else) knew how to influence jurors. He explained this secret of his to V.I. Surikov: “But you, Vasily Ivanovich, when you paint your portraits, strive to look into the soul of the person who poses for you. So I try to penetrate the souls of the jury and make a speech so that it reaches their consciousness.”

Was Plevako always convinced of the innocence of his clients? No. In his defense speech in the case of Alexandra Maksimenko, who was accused of poisoning her husband (1890), he bluntly said: “If you ask me whether I am convinced of her innocence, I will not say “yes, I am convinced.” I don't want to lie. But I am not convinced of her guilt either.<...>When you have to choose between life and death, then all doubts must be resolved in favor of life” (I. 223). However, lawyer Plevako, apparently, avoided knowingly wrong cases. Thus, he refused to defend the notorious swindler Sofya Bluvshtein, nicknamed Sonya - the golden pen, and it was not for nothing that he was known among the accused as Pravyka.

Of course, Plevako’s strength as a court speaker lay not only in resourcefulness, emotionality, and psychologism, but also in the picturesqueness of his words. Although his speeches have lost a lot on paper, they still remain expressive. Plevako was a master of paintingscomparisons(about the purpose of censorship: these are tongs that “remove the carbon from a candle without extinguishing its fire and light”);antitheses(about a Russian and a Jew: “our dream is to eat five times a day and not get heavy, his dream is to eat five times a day and not get thin”: I. 97,108); spectacularappeals(to the shadow of a murdered colleague: “Comrade, sleeping peacefully in a coffin!”, to the jury in the case of P.P. Kachka: “Open your arms - I’m giving it to you!”: I. 43, 164).

Critics attributed the shortcomings of Plevako’s oratorical style to the scattered composition and, especially, the “banal rhetoric” of some of his speeches. Not everyone was impressed by the originality of his talent. Poet D.D. Minaev, recognizing back in 1883 that Plevako was a lawyer, “has long been known everywhere, like the star of his native zodiac,” composed a biting epigram about him:

Will a scribbler lie somewhere?

Will there be a fight somewhere in the tavern,

Will he appear in court from the darkness?

Thieves of public cesspools,

Will the bully push the lady?

Will a dog bite anyone?

Will the Zoyl spitter bark?

Who saves them all? —Gobber .

Ironically, although not without respect (“on the field swear word frantic brute-slasher"), presented by Plevako and in the dictionary-album of P.TO.Martyanov, as well as in the epigram of A.N. Apukhtin: “You know, in the state’s wrath it is destined to be like this: in St. Petersburg - Pleve, and in Moscow - Plevako.”

Didn't like Fyodor Nikiforovich M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, who, by the way, maligned the legal profession as a “cesspool.” In 1882, he spoke about Plevako to the Moscow notary and writer N.P. Orlov (Severov): “I met him at A.N. Pypin and I say: “Is it true that you can put a glass of kvass on your head and dance?” And he rolled his eyes at me and answered: “I can!”

According to D.P. Makovitsky, and A.N. Tolstoy in 1907 called Plevako “the most empty man". But earlier, in a letter to his wife, Sofya Andreevna, dated November 2, 1898, Lev Nikolaevich gave the following review: “Ple-vako is a gifted and rather pleasant person, although not complete, like all specialists.” According to the memoirs of P.A. Rossieva, Tolstoy “directed the men specifically to Plevako: “Fyodor Nikiforovich, whitewash the unfortunate.”

Plevako’s personality combined integrity and sweep, multi-chinese nihilism and religiosity, everyday simplicity and riotous lordship (he organized Homeric feasts on steamships he chartered from Nizhny Novgorod to Astrakhan). Kind to the poor, he literally extorted huge fees from merchants, while demanding advances. One day, a certain moneybag, not understanding the word “advance”, inquired what it was. “Do you know the deposit?” — Plevako answered the question with a question. "I know". - “So the advance is the same deposit, but three times more.”

The following fact speaks about Plevako’s attitude towards such clients. The merchant of the 1st guild Persits filed a complaint with the Moscow Council of Attorneys that Fyodor Nikiforovich refused to accept him, beat him and lowered him down the stairs. The council demanded a written explanation from Plevako. He explained that he could not receive Persits for family reasons, assigned him another day and asked him to leave. “But Persits climbed into the rooms,” we read further in Plevako’s explanation. - Then<...>Driven out of patience by the insolence and impudence of the Persian, I took her hand and turned to the exit. Persits sharply pushed my hand away, but I turned his back to me, kicked the impudent man out of the house, slammed the door and threw his fur coat into the lobby. There was no need for me to beat him." The council left the merchant's complaint without consequences.

In a friendly circle, among his colleagues in the legal profession, Plevako enjoyed the reputation of a “workshop man.” His comrade, hiding under the pseudonym initial “S,” wrote about him in 1895: “He cannot but arouse sympathy for himself with the trait of his immeasurable good nature and warm-hearted gentleness, which permeate his relationships with his comrades and to everyone around in general." From his youth until his death, he was an indispensable member of various charitable institutions in Moscow - such as the Society for Charity, Education and Education of Blind Children and the Committee for Promoting the Establishment of Student Dormitories.

A nice character trait of Plevako was his condescension towards envious people and spiteful critics. At a feast on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his lawyer’s career, he affably clinked glasses with both friends and foes. When his wife was surprised by this, Fyodor Nikiforovich sighed with his usual good nature: “Why should I judge them!”

Plevako’s cultural needs command respect. “His library is comprehensive,” testified writer P.A. Rossiev. Plevako treasured his books, but generously distributed them to friends and acquaintances “to read,” unlike “book misers” like the philosopher V.V. Rozanov, who on principle did not give his books to anyone, saying: “A book is not a girl, there is no point in shaking hands with it.”

Judging by the memoirs of B.S. Utevsky, Plevako, although “he was a passionate lover and collector of books,” he himself allegedly “read little.”

IN AND. Smolyarchuk refuted this opinion, proving that he read Plevako a lot. True, he did not like fiction, but he was fond of literature on history, law, philosophy, and even “took with him on business trips” books by I. Kant, G. Hegel, F. Nietzsche, Kuno Fischer, Georg Jellinek. In general, “he had a kind of tender and caring attitude towards books - his own and others,” B.S. recalled about Plevako. Utevsky, himself a big book lover. — He liked to compare books with children. He was deeply outraged by the sight of a disheveled, torn or soiled book. He said that just as there is (it really did exist) the “Society for the Protection of Children from Cruelty,” it would be necessary to organize a “Society for the Protection of Books from Cruelty,” and they should be taken away from those responsible for this attitude towards books in the same way, how children are taken away from abusive parents or guardians.”

Fyodor Nikiforovich was not just well-read. From his youth, he was distinguished by a rare combination of exceptional memory and observation with the gift of improvisation and a sense of humor, which was expressed in cascades of witticisms, puns, epigrams, parodies - in prose and poetry. His satirical impromptu “Antiphon”, composed “in a few minutes”, P.A. Rossiev published it in No. 2 of the Historical Bulletin for 1909 (pp. 689-690). Plevako published a number of his feuilletons in the newspaper of his friend N.P. Pastukhov’s “Moscow Leaflet”, and in 1885 he undertook the publication of his own newspaper “Life” in Moscow, but “the enterprise was not successful and stopped in the tenth month.”

It is no coincidence that Plevako’s circle of personal connections with cultural masters was very wide. He communicated with I.S. Turgenev, Shchedrin, Leo Tolstoy, was friends with V.I. Surikov, M.A. Vrubel, K.A. Korovin,K.S. Stanislavsky, M.N. Ermolova, F.I. Chaliapin and other writers, artists, performers, with book publisher I.D. Siti-nym. Fyodor Nikiforovich loved all types of spectacles from folk festivals to elite performances, but with the greatest pleasure he visited two “temples of art” in Moscow - the Private Russian Opera S.I. Ma-montova and Art Theater K.S. Stanislavsky and Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. According to the memoirs of the artist K.A. Korovin, Plevako also “really loved painting and attended all exhibitions.”

Velikiy L.V. Sobinov, before becoming a professional singer, served as an assistant to a sworn attorney under the patronage of Plevako and was introduced to M.N. at one of the charity concerts in his patron’s house. Ermolova. “She asked me,” Sobinov recalled, “if I was going to sing at the Bolshoi Theater.” Leonid Vitalievich soon began and until the end of his life (with short breaks) sang at the Bolshoi Theater, but he forever retained a sense of respect for his mentor in the legal profession. On November 9, 1928, he wrote to Plevako’s son Sergei Fedorovich (junior):"II think it’s wonderful your idea to organize an evening in memory of the late Fyodor Nikiforovich.”

Paradoxical, but true: Fyodor Nikiforovich himself, who woredifferent timethree surnames, had two sons with the same name, and they lived and practiced law in Moscowsimultaneously: Sergei Fedorovich Plevako Sr. (born in 1877) was his son from his first wife, E.A. Filippova, and Sergei Fedorovich Plevako Jr. (born in 1886) - from his second wife, M.A. Demidova.

Plevako's first wife was a people's teacher from the Tver province. The marriage was unsuccessful, and probably due to the fault of Fyodor Nikiforovich, who left his wife with a young son. In any case, Sergei Fedorovich Plevako Sr. did not even mention his father in his autobiography. But Fyodor Nikiforovich lived in harmony with his second wife for almost 30 years, until the end of his days.

In 1879, Maria Andreevna Demidova, the wife of a manufacturer, turned to Plevako for legal help, fell in love with the lawyer and foreverpreferred him to the manufacturer. The famous two-volume volume of Fyodor Nikiforovich’s speeches was published the very next year after his death in the “Edition of M.A. Spit.”

His biographers consider religiosity to be one of the main personality traits of Plevako. He was a deeply religious man - all his life, with early childhood and until death. He even provided a scientific basis for his belief in God. The theological department in his home library was one of the richest. Plevako not only observed religious rituals, prayed in church, loved to baptize children of all classes and ranks, served as a ktitor (church warden) in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, but also tried to reconcile the “blasphemous” views of L.N. Tolstoy with dogmas official church, and in 1904, at a reception with Pope Pius X, he argued that since there is one God, there should be one faith in the world and, therefore, Catholics and Orthodox Christians are obliged to live in good harmony...

Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako died on December 23, 1908, at the age of 67, in Moscow. His death naturally caused particular grief among Muscovites, many of whom believed that “Belokamennaya has five main attractions: the Tsar Bell, the Tsar Cannon, St. Basil’s Cathedral, the Tretyakov Gallery and Fyodor Plevako.” But all of Russia responded to Plevako’s departure from life: obituaries were published in many newspapers and magazines. Newspaper " Early morning“On December 24, 1908, she put it this way: “Yesterday Russia lost its Cicero, and Moscow lost its Zlatbust.”

Muscovites buried “their Chrysostom” in front of a huge gathering of people of all strata and conditions in the cemetery of the Sorrow Monastery. In the 30s, Plevako’s remains were reburied at the Vagankovsky cemetery.

ON THE. Trinity

From the book “Lignites of the Russian Bar”

Stolichnayaadvocacy M., 1895. P. 108;Volsky A.V.The truth about Plevako: RGALI. F. 1822.On. 1. D. 555. L. 11. V.D. was considered the “King of the Bar” in Russia. Spasovich, but he was less popular than Plevako.

Maklakov V.A.F.N. Gobber. M., 1910. P. 4. Fans of the famous lawyer L.A. Kupernik was “glorified” with the following verse: “Odessa lawyer Kupernik is a well-known rival of all Gobbers”: GARF. F.R-8420.On. 1. D. 5. L. 11.

Cm.:Maklakov V.A.Decree. op.;Dobrokhotov A.M.Slava and Plevako. M., 1910;Podgorny B.A.Gobber. M., 1914;Koni A.F.Prince A.I. Urusov and F.N. Plevako // Collection. cit.: In 8 volumes. M., 1968. T. 5;Ayahovetsky A.D Characteristics of famous Russian judicial speakers (V.F. Plevako. V.M. Przhevalsky. N.P. Shubinsky). St. Petersburg, 1902;SmolyarchukIN AND. Giants and sorcerers of the word. M., 1984;It's him.Lawyer Fedor Plevako. Chelyabinsk, 1989.

Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako (April 25, 1842, Troitsk - January 5, 1909, Moscow) - the most famous lawyer in pre-revolutionary Russia, jurist, judicial speaker, and actual state councilor. He acted as a defense attorney in many high-profile political and civil trials.

Possessing a lively mind, truly Russian ingenuity and eloquence, he won legal victories over his opponents. In the legal community, he was even nicknamed “Moscow Chrysostom.” There is a selection of the most concise and vivid court speeches of a lawyer, which do not contain complex and confusing judicial terms. If you develop your oratory skills, structure and rhetorical techniques F.N. Plevako can help you with this.

Lawyer F.N. Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and stated that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that it was already 20 minutes past ten on the wall clock. Plevako asked the chairman:

- What time is on your watch, Your Excellency?

The chairman looked and replied:

- At my fifteen minutes past ten.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

“It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.”

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense. The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

— The defendant was actually 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?— The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to court as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was time for the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

— Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

- Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

— Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this poor guy to listen for 15 years? unfair reproaches and the irritated itching of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause. The man was acquitted.

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place. His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them himself. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. Sitting in front of you is a man who gave you thirty years of freedom "Confess your sins. Now he expects from you: will you forgive him his sin?"

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then logically you must justify the revolutionaries too. The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: “Russia had to endure many troubles, many trials for more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented it, the Polovtsy, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve languages ​​fell upon it, took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from the trials. But now ... An old woman stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this, it will perish irrevocably..."

The old woman was acquitted.

In addition to the story about the famous lawyer Plevako. He defends a man who has been accused of rape by a prostitute and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff claims that the defendant took her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako. "Gentlemen of the jury,"- he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: "It's not true! I took off my shoes!!!"

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

To the great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. One day, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the bell for mass with special precision. The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed:

— If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

The present case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky District Court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of the premeditated murder of his children’s former tutor, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky’s wife, E.F. Schmidt. The preliminary investigation established the following. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife end all relations as a tutor, he very quickly became close to his wife, with the tutor, and he himself was fired, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of the property belonging to her. Having settled in the estate allocated to her, she invited E.F. to join her as her manager. Schmidt. After the partition, Gruzinsky’s two children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children; the children were told a lot of incriminating things about Gruzinsky. As a result, being constantly in a tense nervous state during meetings with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky killed Schmidt during one of these meetings, shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the prince’s feelings at the time of the crime, his relationship with his wife, and his love for his children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the “clerk from the store”, about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow: “A tenderly loving father and husband wants to see his family.”

“It was then that the prince, who had not yet left his bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - the sick are so sensitive - in the next room the conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they, apparently, are arguing; but their quarrel is so strange: as if they were scolding their own people, and not strangers, then again the speeches are peaceful..., uncomfortable... The prince gets up, gathers his strength..., walks when no one expected him, when they thought that he was chained to the bed... And so. , not good together... The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those caught fled, not even thinking of sending help to the sick man. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak... He only accepted misfortune in an open heart, so that it would never happen to him not to know separation."

Plevako claims that he would not yet have dared to accuse the princess and Schmidt, to condemn them to the prince’s sacrifice, if they had left, had not boasted of their love, had not insulted him, had not extorted money from him, what is this "It would be a hypocrisy of words." The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here something irreparable happens. “Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that the children’s underwear is in the princess’s house where he lives, rejects the demand with an oath and sends an answer that without 300 rubles as a deposit he will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for the children. The hanger-on, the hired lover, comes between the father and children and dares to call him a man who is capable of wasting children's underwear, takes care of children and demands a deposit of 300 rubles from the father. Not only the father to whom this is said, but the stranger who hears about this, his hair stands on end!"

The next morning the prince saw children in wrinkled shirts. “Father’s heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes and - which fatherly love will not do - went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and went ... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, for a shirt for his children.” . At night, according to witnesses, Schmidt loaded the guns. The prince had a pistol with him, but this was a habit, not an intention. "I affirm- said Plevako, - that an ambush awaits him there. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought." He goes to Schmidt. “Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach it. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of the scoundrel. Here it is - a place where not only was their present taken away from him, they also took away his past happiness, poisoning him with suspicions... God forbid to experience such moments! In such a mood, he drives, approaches the house, knocks on the door. They don’t let him in. The footman speaks about the order not to accept. The prince conveys that he doesn’t need anything except linen. But instead of fulfilling his legal demand, instead Finally, a polite refusal, he hears abuse, abuse from the lips of his wife's lover, directed at him, who does not do any insult on his part. You have heard about this abuse: “Let the scoundrel leave, don’t you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I'll shoot." The prince's whole being was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so impudently. The prince could know that he was armed from his family, who heard from Tsybulin. But the prince could not know that he was capable of anything evil. do not believe". He shoots. "But listen, gentlemen,- says the defender, - was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment." "The prince could not cope with these feelings. They're too legal. The husband sees a man ready to desecrate the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy - and, besides them, there is no one to save the law and the shrine. What rises in their souls is not a vicious feeling of malice, but a righteous feeling of vengeance and defense of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy; “If it doesn’t rise, they are despicable people, pimps, blasphemers!”

Concluding his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the power of the oppression over him of the soul-disturbing pictures of his family misfortune, you admitted that he cannot be charged with the accusation brought against him, and his defender is all around to blame for his insufficient ability to fulfill the task he has taken on...”

The jury returned a not guilty verdict, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

Another time, a wealthy Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. But not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

- Just win the case for me. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

- What pleasure?

“Win the case, you’ll see.”

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

- On Sunday, at about ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up, let’s go.

-Where to this early?

- Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant came to pick me up. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. And the time is not right for these things. We drove down some side streets. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We arrived at some warehouse. A little man is standing at the gate. Either a watchman or a team worker. They got off. Kupchina asks the man:

- Ready?

- That's right, your lordship.

- Lead...

Let's walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves. The merchant sent the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat and offered to take it off for me. I undress. The merchant came to the corner, took two hefty clubs, gave one of them to me and said:

- Start.

- What should we start with?

- Like what? Break the dishes!

- Why beat her?

The merchant smiled.

- Start, you will understand why...

The merchant approached the shelves and with one blow broke a bunch of dishes. I hit too. Broke it too. We began to break the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to smash the dishes with such fury with a club that I’m ashamed to even remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild but acute pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I broke everything down to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

- Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I received it."

Thank you for your attention!