Testimony validityA comparative study of legal and empirical criteria

Resumo

A judgement by the Spanish Supreme Court (Sentencia del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 28 septiembre 1988, RJ 7070) has defined three criteria for the assessment of testimony credibility in cases where there is no evidence other than the complainant´s testimony: subjective incredibility, verisimilitude, and persistence in the incrimination. In other words, the criteria are related to the study of the complainant´s motivation (subjective incredibility in the absence of motivation for accusation), peripheral corroborations of the complainant´s testimony (verisimilitude), and testimony validity understood as internal consistency and consistency over time. In order to determine whether the bases of testimony validity assessment in criminal work are similar or complementary to empirical criteria (SRA, SVA, GES), 100 criminal judgements were taken at random from Aranzadi´s database, in all of which the central pillar of the decision was credibility of the testimony, due to a lack of direct evidence. Results show that lack of persistence in the incrimination is a result of persistence (facts and contexts) in the accused´s testimony, and that lack of persistence in the accusation, contradictions in the main elements of the complainant´s testimony and lack of internal coherence in the complainant´s testimony serve to bring about acquittal. For its part, conviction follows from lack of persistence (facts and contexts) in the accused´s testimony; from persistence in the incrimination by the complainant; from consistency in the central elements of the complainant´s testimony; from the presence of contradictions in peripheral elements of the complainant´s testimony; and from internal coherence in the complainant´s testimony. Finally, it is discussed whether legal and empirical criteria, characteristic of forensic psychology, are redundant or complementary.