PLEA BARGAINING AND THE COLLABORATOR'S WORD: DOGMATIC APPROXIMATIONS WITH TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Abstract

Plenary collaboration is an investigation technique used to produce evidence in highly complex crimes, especially in criminal organizations. Given the fact that the employee is one of those being investigated and receives a reduction or exemption from his sentence, the credibility of his information is always questionable when the judge evaluates the evidence. On the other hand, we have testimonial evidence, whose testimonies are provided in court imbued with the legal commitment to tell the truth and presumed impartiality in the resolution of the criminal action. This research aims to examine the dogmatic and normative approximations (and distances) between the collaborator's word and the testimonial testimony. The procedural methodology is bibliographic, also using court rulings and ordinary legislation on the subject. The approach methodology is deductive, as the aim is to start from the abstract precepts of legal norms and theoretical precepts and analyze their applicability in the specific case. The conclusion is that there are characteristics that bring award-winning collaboration closer to testimonial evidence, however, testimonial evidence and the collaborator's testimony are valued differently in each specific case in light of the judge's free motivated conviction. Both pieces of evidence have the potential to be fragile or robust, and cannot refute the probative value of the accusation under the justification of the whistleblower's bias. Nor can testimonial evidence override denouncing evidence without motivation on rational grounds and epistemological criteria.