THE PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC TRUST IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS AND THE REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENTIARY CORROBORATION

Abstract

This article examines the constitutional limits of the presumption of public trust attributed to law enforcement testimony in Brazilian criminal proceedings, with emphasis on drug trafficking cases governed by Law No. 11,343/2006. It argues that the uncritical transposition of the administrative presumption of legitimacy and truthfulness into criminal procedure creates an undue hierarchy of police testimony, lowers the evidentiary standard required for conviction and improperly shifts to the defense the burden of disproving the prosecution’s version. Methodologically, the research is bibliographical, documentary and qualitative, combining constitutional criminal procedure, critical criminology, judicial epistemology and recent case law from higher courts. The first section examines public trust and its incompatibility with the constitutional accusatorial system. The second section analyzes the changing case law and empirical data on the centrality of police testimony in drug cases, especially the study by Jesus and Amaral (2025), in dialogue with Wacquant (2001, 2003), Flauzina (2006), Alexander (2017), and official SISDEPEN data. The third section develops the requirement of evidentiary corroboration based on Kant de Lima (2004), Mendes (2012), Ferrajoli (2002), Lopes Jr. (2017), and Martins (2013), incorporating the effects of ADPF 347, ADPF 635, and RHC 158.580/BA. It concludes that the democratic legitimacy of criminal convictions requires objective evidentiary standards, a ban on convictions based exclusively on uncorroborated police testimony, mandatory audiovisual recording of police operations, and rational evidentiary assessment.