Yakutin: Examination of a Witness and a Specialist

About the case: Police Lieutenant Ilya Vyacheslavovich Yakutin, a traffic police (DPS) officer, is charged with exceeding his official powers with the use of torture, resulting in grave bodily harm (Part 5 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). According to the investigation, he was pursuing a car that had refused to stop when signaled by the police. When the car was finally stopped in a courtyard, Yakutin pulled two passengers out of it (neither of whom was the driver) and beat them. One of the victims was hospitalized in serious condition.

The case is being heard by the Frunzensky district court of St. Petersburg, with Judge Roman Aleksandrovich Chebotarev presiding.

Taking part in the hearing are Yakutin, his defense counsel (lawyer Gavrilov), Chezhia, assistant prosecutor of the Frunzensky District of St. Petersburg, the victim Krasnov, and the representative of the victim Stepanov (lawyer Tereshchenko). As the other victim’s representative (lawyer Gerasimov) was unable to attend, he sent a request for the hearing to be held without him; Krasnov did not object, and the proceedings continued in the representative’s absence. Yakutin arrived on his own, since he is under house arrest, and sits on the public benches in the courtroom.

The witness Anastasia Krasnova, the wife of the victim Krasnov, is examined. She works at a hospital as an operator in the compulsory medical insurance department and has a minor child.

She says her husband went to Moscow on a business trip around December 10–11, 2025, and was due back on an evening train at about 11:00 p.m. He called to say he was in a taxi with Stepanov (the second victim) and would then take a taxi from Stepanov’s place home. She went to bed, but later that night Stepanov called her and told her what had happened. Because the destination had been entered incorrectly, the taxi took them to the wrong address. They got out, flagged down a car nearby, and agreed with the driver that he would take them. The driver ran a red light, a traffic police car began chasing them, and the driver did not stop and tried to get away. They drove into a dead end, the traffic police officers came up to the car and began inflicting injuries on her husband and Stepanov. When they got home after these events, Stepanov cleaned Krasnov’s wounds and put him to bed.

In the morning her husband came home by taxi from Stepanov’s. His face was covered in blood, bluish, and completely swollen, including his eye, and blood was coming from his ear. Earlier (at about 2:00 a.m.), Stepanov had also sent her a photo of her husband showing his injuries. Her husband confirmed what Stepanov had told her, took his insurance policy, and went to the hospital. He spent a day in intensive care and was then transferred to a ward; in total he was in hospital for about 12 days.

During treatment, Krasnov was found to have a skull fractured in 3 places, broken ribs, bruises, and complete loss of vision in his right eye [probably an error by the investigator, since at the hearings the victim said several times that he had lost the sight in his left eye — ed.], which directly affects his quality of life. Basic everyday tasks (even pouring water into a glass) have become difficult because of impaired depth perception, as have driving and parking. He tires quickly because of the increased strain on one eye and finds it hard to work at a computer for long periods. His vision in the other eye has also deteriorated, and he had to buy new glasses.

Lawyer Gavrilov asks how the witness knows about the injuries and how they affect Krasnov’s life. She replies that she can see it because she lives with him. The lawyer twice remarks: “So only visually?” The judge disallows further questions: “In my view, the witness has given an exhaustive answer regarding everyday life and has indicated how she reached that conclusion”.

The prosecution representative moves for the witness’s testimony to be read out because of significant contradictions (an incorrect date of the events). No one objects, the motion is granted, and the state prosecutor reads out the case materials.

Record of the examination of Krasnova dated December 15, 2025

Apart from a one-day difference in the date, the record differs in being more detailed and mentioning a number of additional circumstances. Among other things, it states that after the beating the victims were released and went to Stepanov’s home: “at that moment I became very worried about my husband and asked Stepanov to send a photo of what my husband looked like” (attached to the record). The photo made her feel sick, “because my husband’s whole face was beaten, his eye was swollen and blue”. When he arrived in the morning, all his clothes were covered in blood and blood was running from his ear; “my husband immediately told me that during the night he had been beaten by traffic police officers who kicked him in the body and head”. She sent him to the hospital straight away, since “my husband looked very bad, there wasn’t an unbruised spot on his face”. Some time later he was admitted to intensive care. The medical staff were shocked that he had managed to get to the hospital with such injuries, since people with injuries like that usually cannot walk and are brought in on stretchers.

“That same day I began receiving calls from unknown numbers; the callers introduced themselves as traffic police officers and insistently suggested meeting and talking. Coming on top of the shock of seeing my husband’s injuries, these calls filled me and my son with real fear; I was forced to leave the apartment with my child, fearing possible consequences”.

The consequences of the beating for her husband are very grave: he has gone blind in one eye, and “this physical and moral trauma has become a personal catastrophe for him and an irreparable loss for our whole family”. She asks that those guilty “of such a cruel crime” be brought to criminal justice.

After the witness confirms the testimony, she is asked a number of questions about the additional information in the record. The state prosecutor asks her to describe the circumstances of the “threats” (the calls from police officers), even though that word did not appear in the text that was read out.

Krasnova explains that on the day her husband was hospitalized, people began calling her and asking for details of what had happened, introducing themselves as police officers and saying they had received a report from the hospital. In the evening, another person invited her to meet, saying they needed to take the victim’s statement, and asked her to come to the hospital. The officer spoke to her husband, explaining among other things that he would be handling the case, but did not speak to Krasnova again. She asked why she had been asked to come and was told: “We just want to take a look at you”.

The specialist Aleksandr Valeryevich Zherlov (called by the prosecution) is examined. He is a senior lecturer at the Department of Law Enforcement Activities in Special Conditions of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia and has a higher legal education. No documents confirming his qualifications were visibly presented or examined by the presiding judge. During the examination, the specialist consulted notes in a notebook he had brought with him and placed on the stand, and had difficulty answering some questions about the content of legal provisions on his own. The court and the parties did not react to this, and no remarks were made about it.

The examination amounts to an explanation of the procedure for the use of physical force by police officers established by Russian law.

The procedure and conditions for the use of physical force, special equipment, and firearms are set out in Article 19 of the Federal Law “On the Police”: the officer must identify himself, warn of his intention, and give time and an opportunity to comply with lawful demands. Under the same article, a warning is not required if there is a direct threat to the life and health of the police officer or of citizens, or if other grave consequences may occur. The officer must take into account the nature and degree of the resistance offered, seek to minimize harm, and ensure that first aid and emergency medical care are provided. The provisions on necessary self-defense in the relevant chapter of the Criminal Code are also taken into account. In all cases where firearms or special equipment are used, and where physical force causes physical or material harm, the officer is obliged to write a report and inform his superiors.

The specialist does not directly assess the defendant’s actions, limiting himself to the comment that they could have been justified only if the victims had posed a direct threat to life and health. In any event, Yakutin was obliged to report to his superiors the use of physical force on such a scale.

At the request of the state prosecutor and with the defense’s consent, the written testimony of the witness Misikov is examined (read out), since he failed to appear despite being duly notified.

Record of the examination of Georgy Rumyanovich Misikov as a witness dated December 20, 2025:

He is a senior inspector of Platoon No. 2 of the Separate Traffic Police Company of the Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Frunzensky District of St. Petersburg. On December 10, 2025, he was on duty with Yakutin. They were patrolling the Frunzensky District when, at about 1:37 a.m., they noticed a car make a dangerous maneuver at the intersection of Bukharestskaya Street and Slavy Avenue. They headed toward it, pulled up alongside it at a traffic light, and ordered the driver to stop for a document check. The driver did not do so and drove forward against a red light. “Since the driver ignored a police officer’s lawful order to stop and attempted to flee, we immediately began pursuing the vehicle”. The car drove into a dead end. The witness got out and went to detain the driver: he opened the door, ordered him to get out, and immediately said that they were police officers. The driver refused to leave the vehicle, gripped the steering wheel, and did not respond, showing clear disobedience, which could indicate an intention to try to flee again by maneuvering in the confined space, “thereby creating a threat of harm to me or my partner”.

The witness then saw Yakutin run up to the car, grab Krasnov by his clothes, and pull him out of the car. The witness was busy with the driver and was not paying close attention to Yakutin. “Everything happened very quickly, there were noises and shouts from Krasnov, Yakutin was shouting something. From the sounds, in particular the characteristic swishing of nylon fabric, of uniform trousers during vigorous movement, I got the impression that Yakutin kicked Krasnov several times; I did not see where exactly the blows landed”. Yakutin then pulled Stepanov out of the car; the witness did not see whether he beat him. Later Yakutin went back to Krasnov, “seeing that he was getting up, ordered him to stay down and, as it seemed to me, kicked or pushed him with his foot”, and the victim fell onto the asphalt, hitting his head and body.

An additional traffic police unit was called for assistance. When it arrived, the necessary procedural documents were drawn up. No one was taken to the police station; they waited for a tow truck, after which everyone went their separate ways.

He also notes that he saw blood on Krasnov’s head and that Yakutin gave him a napkin. The driver was ultimately held administratively liable. “None of the passengers insulted us, struck us, offered active resistance, or tried to flee after the car was stopped”. The passengers smelled of alcohol, but they were fairly steady on their feet and did not stagger, “so I am not sure how intoxicated they were”.

He describes the defendant Yakutin as follows: “I can’t say anything bad about him”, “a normal, fairly level-headed person”; he had never seen such behavior from him before. “Yakutin repeatedly told Krasnov to stay down, he kept trying to get up, so Yakutin probably struck him”. However, he does not consider the use of physical force to that extent lawful.

He did not tell anyone about what he had seen, because he did not see where exactly Yakutin struck the victim and did not think he could have inflicted such injuries.

The hearing is adjourned to summon the remaining witness and to prepare for the examination of the case materials.