Kuzbass Truck Driver Convicted in Fatal Crash, Challenges Verdict

In March 2023, a fatal accident occurred on a highway in Krasnoyarsk Krai. The driver of a new truck, Alexei Sherin, collided with an oncoming truck — two people died. The court sentenced him to three years of forced labor. But the driver is sure: he is not to blame, but a manufacturing defect in the car, the presence of which was confirmed by an examination. The prosecutor«s office took his side, but the courts ignored this. The person recognized as guilty in the accident told NGS24.RU correspondent Gennady Denisov what he disagrees with in the verdict.

«The Car Just Started Skidding»

Alexei has worked with freight transport since 2006 — he was a mechanic, chief mechanic, knows the technology from the inside. He lived in Leninsk-Kuznetsky, worked for a small transport company that dealt with coal transportation. The owner and director — friends since childhood, all from the same yard.

In February 2023, the company purchased a new Shacman dump truck through leasing. They decided to pick up the truck from Krasnoyarsk with three people: the owner, the director, and Alexei. The truck was ready, having undergone pre-sale preparation. Visually, everything was in order: no oil leaks, wear, or damage. A new car as from a showroom.

The owner stayed in Krasnoyarsk for business, and Alexei with the director Sergei — a childhood friend — got into the truck and drove home. It was the evening of March 1, 2023.

The weather worsened on the way: wet snow began to fall, slush appeared on the asphalt, forming a slippery rut. Temperature around zero (32°F). Alexei reduced his speed to 60 km/h — although 70 was allowed on that section. They stopped to eat at a cafe near Kozulka, then drove on.

— Literally, we drove about five kilometers. It«s dark, wet snow is lying, I»m driving in the rut. And suddenly the car just starts skidding. I try to straighten it, realize we«re already moving into oncoming traffic and headlights are flying toward us. I instinctively shout: »Hold on!« I try to steer the car into the ditch on the oncoming side, — Alexei recounts.

The time was around eight in the evening. It was not possible to prevent the head-on collision. Two people died: Sergei — the childhood friend who was sitting next to him in the truck cab, and the driver of the oncoming Scania tractor with a trailer. Alexei suffered a concussion, a knee bruise, and was covered in cuts from glass. A alcohol test showed 0 per mille.

— The case is actually very complicated, and its complexity lies in the fact that proving the absence of guilt of a driver who survived an accident where people died is practically impossible, — says Alexei«s lawyer Igor Marchenko.

Wheels Were Smoking

The next day, Alexei helped evacuate the wrecked truck. And then he noticed something strange: there was an oily coating on the right rims, as if the brake pads had overheated. And when they started to release the brakes for evacuation, the right side wouldn«t budge.

— The tow truck driver comes up and says: «I can»t release the brakes. The left side released well, but the right side I can«t at all. The bolt unscrewed and got stuck,» — Alexei recalls.

When they finally moved, the wheels started smoking. They stopped several times, the tow truck driver tried to release the brake system again — and each time the story repeated.

I immediately recorded everything on video. It was clear that something was wrong somewhere. We had driven only 100 kilometers in this truck

«Deny»

On March 3, Alexei submitted a motion to the investigator to conduct an examination of the braking system. He described the problem and attached the video. The investigator«s response, according to the man, was brief: »Deny.« Without explanations.

Alexei filed motions again and again — about ten times. Each time the investigator denied with one word, without justification.

— The investigator, by law, must do this with motivation. Either it«s not relevant to the case, or some other reason. My arguments should be checked in any case. But she just writes: »Deny,« — Alexei is perplexed.

According to lawyer Marchenko, the investigation was initially skeptical of Alexei«s position about a manufacturing defect:

— The refusals to appoint an examination were formal, unmotivated — the driver«s version was considered solely as a way to avoid responsibility.

According to Alexei, instead of an examination, the investigator brought in a «specialist» to inspect the vehicle — a person with a crane operator education who worked as a driver of UAZ and KamAZ trucks. He inspected the wrecked car and wrote: «The braking system is technically sound.»

— To have the status of a specialist for inspecting vehicles, one of three higher educations is needed. One of them — automotive engineering, which I have. She [the investigator] brings in a driver, he looks into the wrecked car and says: «Yes, it»s sound,« — Alexei is indignant.

Examination Through Court

Only in October 2023 did Alexei change lawyers. The new defender filed a lawsuit over the investigator«s inaction. And only then, without waiting for the hearing, the investigator appointed an examination — effectively a year after the accident.

The examination began in December 2023 but was suspended and resumed only in March 2024. The conclusion is dated April 24, 2024. All this time, the truck stood outside.

The research was conducted by an expert from the FBU «Krasnoyarsk Laboratory of Forensic Examination of the Ministry of Justice of Russia» — a specialist with higher technical education and the right to independently conduct examinations in the specialties «Investigation of accident circumstances» and «Investigation of the technical condition of vehicles.»

Alexei was personally present during the disassembly of the unit. The expert detailed the condition of the brake mechanisms on all axles. A problem was found on the right wheels of the fourth axle: when trying to spread the brake pads, the bolt of the energy accumulator moved with difficulty, the rod — with a skew. After disassembling the brake chamber, a misalignment of the energy accumulator piston relative to the hole in the support disc was revealed.

Expert«s conclusion: »The braking system of the SHACMAN SX33186V366 truck with identification number (VIN) LZGJX4V62PX003660 at the time of inspection and at the time of the accident on 01.03.2023 is in a faulty condition. The fault consists of jamming due to the misalignment of the piston of the energy accumulator of the brake chamber of the right wheels of the fourth axle of the vehicle.«

Regarding the nature of the defect, the expert wrote: «The fault likely has a manufacturing character.» He could not give a categorical answer — for that, a complete disassembly of the unit was required, which was impossible to conduct.

— The examination unequivocally confirmed the presence of a technical fault in the vehicle at the moment of the accident. At the same time, the expert essentially agreed with the defense«s position that the fault that manifested during movement provoked the skid — an uncontrolled loss of directional stability of the vehicle, — explains lawyer Marchenko.

The expert also described the mechanism of the defect«s influence on movement: with such a fault, during braking and releasing, the right wheels of the fourth axle might not release completely. This created a »turning moment, tending to turn the vehicle clockwise, with its shift to the right« relative to the initial trajectory.

It would seem, all clear: the car was faulty, and this defect could cause a skid. But then the expert made an unexpected conclusion: «The discovered fault, from a technical point of view, is not in a cause-and-effect relationship with the fact of the considered accident.»

At the same time, he added that the collision occurred when the truck shifted left into the oncoming lane, and this «from a technical point of view, became possible due to the driver applying an imprudent turn while aligning movement in the desired direction.»

— Such a formulation doesn«t exist at all — not in expert methodologies, not in jurisprudence. During interrogation, the expert was asked where he even got these words from. He even named a manual — we read it, it»s over two hundred pages. There are no such formulations there, — Alexei explains.

Alexei«s lawyer confirms:

— Neither legal nor scientific literature contains such a concept as «imprudent turn.» When questioned by the defense in court, the expert could not decipher the terminology he used, just as he could not distinguish a prudent turn from an imprudent one.

The expert, in Alexei«s opinion, gave a conclusion about the driver»s actions, although that was not the question before him. According to the ruling on appointing the examination, he was only asked: in what technical condition were the braking system and steering system, and if faulty — whether the defect has a manufacturing or operational character.

— To establish whether the driver is guilty or not, three examinations are needed. First: the part is sound/faulty; second: in which direction will this fault cause a skid under these road conditions; third: what should the driver«s actions be during a skid. The expert gave conclusions without calculations, without studying the case materials, — insists Alexei.

According to the defense, after establishing the fact of the fault and skid, another examination should have been appointed: did the driver have the technical ability to avoid the accident and could Alexei straighten the car and regain control after the skid? However, the investigation, and then the courts, refused this.

«I Was Left Alone with My Problems»

After the examination indicated the probable manufacturing character of the defect, it would have been logical to summon the dealer and representatives of the manufacturer Shacman for questioning. But according to Alexei, this was not done.

— The dealer was requested only once at the very beginning. He said: we handed over a sound car, and what happened there — we don«t know. And that»s it, it ended there. After the examination, no one else was questioned — not the dealer, not a factory representative, no one at all, — says the truck driver.

The employer company tried to file claims against the dealer in a civil case, but was refused: they said, the car wasn«t sold to you, but to the bank (through leasing), address them. The bank unilaterally terminated the contract.

Since December 15, 2024, the organization that sold the truck — is bankrupt, a bankruptcy manager has been appointed.

— I was left alone with my problems, — Alexei summarizes.

«There Was an Opportunity to Avoid»

Meanwhile, the trial began. The indictment stated: «He was driving a technically sound vehicle» — despite the examination establishing a fault.

The verdict of the court of first instance was issued on July 29, 2025.

In court, the defense moved for an additional examination: to determine in which direction the car would skid with such a fault on a slippery road, and to evaluate the driver«s actions.

The prosecutor«s office supported the motion, citing the Constitution of the Russian Federation: all irremovable doubts must be interpreted in favor of the accused. But the judge rejected it.

— In my practice, there have been no cases where both the defense side and the state prosecution side in the process ask to appoint an examination to establish the truth in the case, and the court refuses, — says lawyer Marchenko.

Then Alexei used his right and at his own expense ordered two independent examinations at different institutions. Both specialists conducted research with mathematical calculations and application of methodologies. One of them has a Candidate of Technical Sciences degree.

The conclusion of both experts was unequivocal: on a slippery road, the driver could not avoid the accident with such a brake system fault and the skid it caused.

Based on the case materials, an independent expert in court directly said: «no actions by the driver in case of loss of directional stability can lead to restoration of the trajectory,» «the moment of skid onset takes 0.1-0.2 seconds, while the driver»s reaction time is at least 0.8 seconds.«

The defense presented these conclusions to the court. One of the specialists was questioned in court and confirmed his findings. However, the judge deemed the conclusions inadmissible evidence on formal grounds: the specialists were not warned of criminal responsibility before conducting the research.

— Meanwhile, no participant in criminal proceedings, except the investigator or the judge directly, has the right to take a receipt from experts about responsibility, — explains lawyer Marchenko. — Thus, a situation developed where neither the investigation nor the court wants to appoint the necessary examination, and the conclusions presented by the defense side are not accepted on grounds that we cannot overcome.

Verdict of the court of first instance: three years of forced labor plus compensations to the relatives of the deceased.

The reasoning part of the verdict is laconic. The document lists all witnesses, all evidence, and at the end — one phrase: «There was an opportunity to avoid the road traffic accident.»

Appeal in Half an Hour

On August 12, 2025, the prosecutor«s office of Kozulsky District filed an appeal presentation to overturn the verdict and send the case for new consideration. This is an extremely rare situation — when a state prosecutor speaks against a guilty verdict. To NGS24.RU»s question about on what specific grounds the presentation was filed, the prosecutor«s office did not respond.

The appeal took place on November 11, 2025. The entire process took 30 minutes.

— The prosecutor spoke, said that the collision site is not determined, guilt is not proven. It turns out, from the verdict they only crossed out two traffic police officers who were listed as witnesses. The verdict was left unchanged, — Alexei recounts.

The press service of the Krasnoyarsk Krai prosecutor«s office confirmed to NGS24.RU that the appeal was indeed considered on November 11, 2025, and the verdict was left unchanged.

— When rendering the verdict, the court gave a comprehensive assessment of the presented evidence, both from the state prosecution and the defense side. The expert«s conclusions about the causes of the accident were investigated, including by interrogating the expert, who confirmed and argued his findings, — explained the prosecutor»s office.

What Next?

Now Alexei is awaiting consideration of the cassation complaint in the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in Kemerovo. The complaint was filed at the end of December 2025. In it, the defense emphasizes the violation of Alexei«s rights to defense, incompleteness of the judicial investigation, and the need for an additional examination.

— How the cassation will go — it«s completely unclear, — says Alexei.

Two witnesses who were driving behind confirmed: the skid occurred sharply and suddenly, there were no obstacles on the road. Alexei was driving at a speed of 60 km/h instead of the allowed 70, was sober, had vast experience driving trucks.

During the skid, he tried to straighten the car, removed his feet from the pedals (to dampen the rotation of the rear wheels), turned the steering wheel. Seeing that collision was inevitable, he tried to steer the truck into the ditch.

The accident diagram compiled by the traffic police, in Alexei«s opinion, contains illogicalities: officers claim that the cab from the impact to the rear part flew backward, which contradicts physics. The expert never could precisely establish the collision site.

— We were moving calmly. Speed 60 kilometers. It«s dark, there»s a rut. I got into this rut and was just driving in the rut. Around, wet snow is lying. I didn«t pull an axe from under my coat, didn»t get out, didn«t hit someone. We were moving calmly. And suddenly — a skid, — says Alexei.