Cases had convictions based on a 3×4 photo taken 9 years before the crime, a Facebook photo and clothing
Three defendants had their decisions reversed for different crimes during the same session of the (Supreme Court of Justice) due to failed recognitions. One of them had the sentence that determined the jury trial reversed, while the other 2 were acquitted.
In the 1st case, the defendant was suspected of murder, attempted murder and robbery. The image used for recognition by the victim was a 3×4 photo of the suspect taken 9 years before the crime, when the suspect was 15 years old.
The case rapporteur, Minister Rogerio Schietti Cruz, cited the physical differences between the suspect and the description of the victim, in addition to the interval between when the photo was taken and the crime.
Schietti also pointed out that none of the witnesses identified the suspect and the only evidence against him was the “Completely irregular photographic recognition carried out by the victim at the police station“. There was also no show-upa technique in which people with similar physical characteristics are lined up so that the victim can recognize them.
“Isolated photographic recognition, tainted by such illegalities and weaknesses, imposes the conclusion that, strictly speaking, there was not enough evidence of authorship of the crime for the patient to pronounce“, concluded the minister.
PHOTOS TAKEN FROM FACEBOOK
In the second case, a robbery, one of the victims stated that he could not recognize the suspects, since they were wearing helmets. Two years after the crime, however, the victim was called to the police station and, using photos taken from the social network Facebook, identified a man as one of the criminals and gave details of his physical characteristics.
For the rapporteur, Minister Sebastião Reis Junior, the evidence is fragile, “as they were formed from the initial invalid recognition, and, in addition, the subsequent identification of the suspect made by the victim in court may have been induced by the first recognition”.
The minister also pointed out that the arrest did not take place in the act and there was no seizure of crime objects from him. The security cameras at the place where the crime took place also do not allow the criminals to be identified.
IDENTIFICATION BY SHIRT USED IN THE CRIME
In the third case, the police approached the defendant close to the place where the crime took place, a robbery. In his mother’s car, they found a shirt that would be similar to the one identified in security camera images. The suspect was arrested and, at the police station, recognized by the victim as the perpetrator of the crime.
For Rogerio Schietti Cruz, who was also the rapporteur for this case, the image of the crime did not coincide with the characteristics of the arrested suspect. The expert report on the seized shirt also pointed out that it was not the same one worn by the man, which had different characteristics, such as stripes, prints and sleeve length.
Schietti commented that the expertise observed anatomical details such as height, arm span, shoulder width and shape of the suspect’s face, in addition to the peculiarities of the clothing worn by the criminal on the day of the robbery.
The minister concluded that the man’s conviction was upheld based on “more precarious evidence” and therefore acquitted the defendant.
