|
|
Judge Marcelo Semer, recognized that the defendant was convicted based on two pieces of evidence: images from security cameras borrowed from another investigation into another theft crime in the same region, and recognition by the victim, initially by photograph at police headquarters and, later, when presented alone in court. For Semer, the way evidence is produced makes its content "very unreliable". Initially, he analyzed how the accused was involved in the investigation. Police reports state that, in efforts to investigate the robbery that occurred on February 17, 2016, the police officers responsible for the case learned that another home robbery occurred on February 24, seven days later, in the same region. As the victim of the first crime had seen a gray Gol vehicle parked in front of his house and the security cameras presented by the victim of the second crime showed a vehicle with the same characteristics, the police began to investigate the crimes together.
The defendant appeared in images from February 23, 2016, walking around the region and, therefore, became a suspect in the two robberies. "Notwithstanding the police statement that the defendant appeared in the media provided by the victim of the second offense was the starting point for his investigation and subsequent conviction, at no time was this identification proven by the prosecution. The expert re Special Phone Number Data port presents images of poor quality and which does not confirm this police allegation. In fact, this report confirms the defense's allegation that it is not possible to observe any specific information in such media other than the type and brand of vehicles: neither the license plate of such vehicles, nor the identity of the person who walks down the street," said Semer. The rapporteur considered that the testimony of the civil police officers responsible for the investigation confirms the insecurity of the defendant's identification in the images.
The content of the police statement indicates that the 'recognition' of the defendant by the civil police officers was a mere guess after he was informally indicated by anonymous military police officers as possibly being involved in the crime due to having a personal relationship with another suspect", owner of the vehicle Gol which would have been seen at the scene of the crime. Semer also highlighted that the defendant was a first-time offender before this incident and had never even been the target of an investigation. Thus, for the magistrate, there is no evidence in the records that the accused had any prior involvement in the commission of crimes, nor was there any reason given for him to be "known to the police", as alleged by the case's investigators. Null recognition For the rapporteur, the procedure of article 226, of the CPP, was "purposely not complied with in the police sphere", with the victim being exposed to photographs of the suspects initially informally, together with the investigators.
|
|
發表於 15:08:28