The relevance of the article lies in the fact that the explanation, as a source of information for making a decision on a particular issue arising in criminal proceedings, still has not been fully studied legal nature, which causes quite controversial issues in legal science and practice. But, in addition to the explanation, an explanation that has recently appeared in Russian criminal proceedings has a similar legal nature to it. In accordance with the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the court of appeal may hear explanations from persons who performed the duties of jurors on a number of issues that accompanied the verdict. At the same time, it is the right of a juror to give explanations to the court. At the same time, the judge to whom the challenge has been filed also has the right to give an explanation about the claimed challenge. The legislator has not resolved the question of what is the legal nature of the explanations and explanations in criminal proceedings given by the judge and the juror, and whether these sources of information are evidence.The purpose of the article is to try to uncover the issues of using explanations and explanations of judges and jurors in modern criminal proceedings in order to identify problematic issues and offer them for discussion to the scientific community and practitioners.Objectives: to study the evolution of the use of the theory of explanations and explanations of judges and jurors in criminal proceedings, the "catechon", its analysis and understanding in practice.Methodology. The basis of this research is a combination of the universal dialectical method of scientific cognition, general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, and private scientific methods of cognition, such as: formal-logical, formal-legal. The authors also used methods of studying social phenomena in their concrete manifestation in specific conditions of place and time: the study of documents, observation, comparison.The results of the study are distinguished by an applied nature with elements of scientific novelty. The authors considered the emerging difficulties associated with the practical implementation of the provisions of the use of explanations and explanations of judges and jurors.Conclusions. The discussion of the identified problems will draw the attention of the legislator and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the development of solutions to eliminate the identified gaps in the criminal procedure legislation. _____________________
