The Standard of Proof in crimes against sexual dignity

STJ Case Law at the Intersection of victim protection and the presumption of innocence

Abstract

This article critically examines the case law of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that assigns special probative value to the victim’s testimony in crimes against sexual dignity, investigating whether this approach entails an undue lowering of the standard of proof and a consequent violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence. Drawing on the theoretical framework of legal epistemology applied to criminal evidence—particularly the contributions of Jordi Ferrer Beltrán, Larry Laudan, and Michele Taruffo on standards of proof, further developed through the analysis of evidence theory in democratic criminal procedure—and on the examination of leading STJ decisions, the study confronts the need to protect victims of sexual violence with the procedural guarantees of the accused. Methodologically, the research adopts a qualitative and analytical approach, combining a literature review with case law analysis. As case studies, examined through the lens of media criminology and the rational assessment of evidence, the episodes involving Neymar Júnior (case dismissed by the São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office) and Daniel Alves (conviction and subsequent annulment by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia) are analyzed. These cases illustrate the concrete risks of overvaluing the victim’s testimony and of parallel trials driven by the media. The article concludes that the STJ should adopt objective and rational criteria for evidentiary assessment in sexual offenses, reconciling victim protection with due process, reasoned judicial decision-making, and the presumption of innocence, thereby avoiding convictions based exclusively on a single source of evidence. 

Keywords: standard of proof; sexual crimes; presumption of innocence; victim’s testimony; STJ case law.