Judicial practice in the aspect of the court’s assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings

The research, the results of which are presented in the proposed article, is devoted to the study and demonstration of the potential of judicial practice in promoting the optimization of the court’s activities in assessing evidence in criminal proceedings. Its relevance is determined by the ability of judicial practice to strengthen the advantages of such institutions as the rule of law and legal certainty, reduce the number of unfounded court decisions and delays in the consideration of criminal cases and, as a result, strengthen the authority of the judiciary. The article considers the role of judicial practice in ensuring the uniformity of the application of the law, the formation of standards for assessing evidence, resolving complex issues of evidence, and preventing errors in assessing evidence. Some approaches to working with precedents, including controversial court decisions, are given. The need to take into account the hierarchy of the judiciary is emphasized. The problem of deviation from the legal positions expressed in the Supreme Court’s decisions is discussed. It is concluded that in terms of evidence assessment, the Supreme Court’s approaches are used to support the court’s argumentation in the case under consideration. Attention is drawn to the role of appellate courts in the formation of case law. The issue of the accessibility of case law and the role of artificial intelligence in its use, the importance of training judges to work with case law are considered. As a result, it is stated that case law is an indispensable tool for assessing evidence, but its use requires a judge to be highly professional, creative thinking, and constantly improve their knowledge. It is also necessary to ensure the accessibility of case law and develop skills in interpreting it. Only then can case law effectively serve the purposes of administering justice and ensuring fairness. It is important to remember that case law is not a frozen dogma, but a living, developing organism that requires constant analysis and interpretation, as well as deep reflection taking into account modern social and legal realities. The use of modern technologies in the analysis of judicial practice should be conscious and critical, not replace qualified legal analysis, but only supplement it.