Validez del testimonioun estudio comparativo de los criterios legales y empíricos

Resumo

Jurisprudente (TS Sentence, penal court, september 28th 1988, RJ 7070) has define three criteria for tetimony credibility estimation in cases where there are no other proofs apart from accusation´s testimony: subjetive uncredibility, verisimilitude, and incrimination persistance. Other words, criteria is related to the study of the accusation´s motivation (subjetive uncredibility at absence of motivation for the accuser), periferic corroborations of accusator´s testimony (verisimilitude) and testimony validity understood as internal consistance and in time. In order to know if testimony validity estimation in penal work is similiar or complementary to empirical criteria (SRA, SVA, SEG), we get at random 100 penal timony as a lack of other proofs. Results show that the lack of persistence during incrimination is result of persistence (facts and contexts) in accusated´s declaration; the little persistence in the accusation; contradictions in main elements of the accusator´s testimony; and the lack of internal coherence of the accusator´s testimony, are valid to justify absolution. Also, conviction is followed by the carence of persistence (facts and contexts) in accusated ´s testimony; in accusation persistence formulated by the accusator; in the consistence in the main parts of the accusator´s declaration; the presence of contradictions inperiferic parts of the accusator´s declaration; and internal coherence in the accusator´s testimony. At last, it is argued if legal and empirical criteria are redundant or complementary.