| Summary: | The present article addresses aspects of eyewitness identification in Brazil and the United States, as well as some of the factors that imply the fallibility of testimony. The main purpose of the research is to understand how does each, Brazil and the United States, treat testimonial evidence? What are some of the factors the influence the fallibility of the testimony? Finally, does the non-observance of the legal criteria in the article 226 of the Brazilian Criminal Procedure Code reinforce the Labeling Approach and criminal selectivity? The methodology applied in the research consists in literature review and the analysis of some judicial cases in which eyewitness identification was used as evidence. The specific goals of the study were to analyze the Brazilian and North American doctrinal understanding of eyewitness identification; examine how the Brazilian courts addresses the issue; research the various factors that may influence the identification; and, finally, discuss about the criminal selectivity that can be reinforced by the non-observance of the legal criteria for eyewitness identification. One can conclude that the article 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though it lacks some update, should be applied in its entirety in order to avoid the influence of factors such as false memories and issues involving cross racial identification, weapon effect, among others. Respecting legal criteria is also capable to avoid the strengthening of criminal selectivity and the Labeling Approach.
|
|---|
