J U S T I C E
U N D E R
P R E S S U R E
―
T H E
S E C O N D
K H O D O R K O V S K Y
‐
L E B E D E V
T R I A L
E X E C U T I V E
S U M M A R Y
―
Prepared
by
Defense
Counsel
of
Mikhail
B.
Khodorkovsky
&
Platon
L.
Lebedev
S E P T E M B E R
3 0 ,
2 0 1 1
2
/
38
“For
me,
as
for
anybody,
it
is
hard
to
live
in
jail,
and
I
do
not
want
to
die
there.
But
if
I
have
to—I
will
not
hesitate.
The
things
I
believe
in
are
worth
dying
for.
I
think
I
have
proven
this.”
Mikhail
B.
Khodorkovsky,
Amnesty
International
Prisoner
of
Conscience
Final
Words
to
the
Khamovnichesky
Court
Moscow,
November
2,
2010
3
/
38
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
BACKGROUND
&
TRIAL
OVERVIEW................................................................................
5
Overview
of
Key
Developments..................................................................................................
5
Pre
‐
Trial
Investigatory
Phase......................................................................................................
5
Charges......................................................................................................................................
6
Prosecution’s
Sham
Case............................................................................................................
6
Defense
Denied
Meaningful
Due
Process...................................................................................
6
Verdict
and
Sentence.................................................................................................................
7
The
Appeal.................................................................................................................................
8
Transfer
to
Prison.......................................................................................................................
9
II.
WHAT
THE
CHARGES
AND
THE
VERDICT
MEAN..............................................................
9
Khodorkovsky
and
Lebedev
Supposedly
Embezzled
all
Yukos
Oil
over
a
Six
‐
Year
Period.............
10
Yukos
was
Supposedly
a
Huge
Sham..........................................................................................
10
Regulatory
Compliance
is
Supposedly
Indicative
of
Criminal
Activity..........................................
11
III.
WHY
THE
FACTS
AND
THE
LAW
SHOULD
HAVE
EXONERATED
THE
DEFENDANTS............
12
Fundamental
Errors
and
Weaknesses
Exposed
by
the
Defense...................................................
12
Former
and
Current
Russian
Government
Officials
Testified
that
Charges
Were
Not
Credible.....
15
Other
Witness
Testimony...........................................................................................................
17
IV.
THE
APPEAL...................................................................................................................
19
V.
DUE
PROCESS
VIOLATIONS
AND
OFFICIAL
MISCONDUCT...............................................
19
Prosecution’s
Failure
to
Explain
Charges.....................................................................................
20
Denial
of
the
Presumption
of
Innocence.....................................................................................
21
Court’s
Refusal
to
Admit
Exculpatory
Evidence
Presented
by
the
Defense..................................
22
Court’s
Refusal
to
Assist
Defense
in
Compelling
Prosecutors
to
Produce
Evidence
or
to
Assist
Defense
in
Compelling
Third
Parties
to
Produce
Exculpatory
Documents....................................
22
Court’s
Refusal
to
Exclude
Illegally
‐
Obtained
Evidence...............................................................
23
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
