Provas em vídeo no processo judicial: o impacto do olho vivo nas decisões de primeiro grau em Minas Gerais

Abstract

Due to the constant evolution of technology and its increasing use by society in various ways, this research aimed to investigate the impact of video evidence from the Olho Vivo system on the basis of criminal sentences on the merits, whether or not they are guilty, handed down in the first instance of jurisdiction. It is based on the theoretical framework of Jessica Silbey, who problematizes the reflection on the interpretation of video, arguing that video would be a constructed medium, presenting a certain point of view, including and also excluding certain images, based precisely on the point of view of the person filming. In order to achieve the main objective, keywords were adopted as criteria for the search of sentences, within a delimited period, within the scope of the Court of Justice of the State of Minas Gerais (TJMG). In addition to the general objective of verifying the impact of the Olho Vivo system on first instance sentences, some of the specific objectives were defined as: to verify whether or not judges, when issuing decisions, mention the video; whether the content of the video is known through other evidentiary means and, if so, what type of evidence is given greater value. After the research, it was found that there is a tendency to value the video indirectly, so that the video content was generally known through another type of evidence, in most cases, through the testimony of the military police officer who participated in the incident and attended the scene of the incident. Since the criminal prosecution began as a result of the cameras of the Olho Vivo system, it was found that this system has a considerable impact on the decision handed down. In order to better explore the research, we sought to analyze the content of some specific sentences and the judgments handed down in the respective appeals, in order to find out whether the judges had the same stance as the first instance judges. Analyzing each sentence and judgment researched, it was found that there is no uniformity in the decisions, with some in which the filming is treated as important and others as dispensable. It was also confirmed that direct assessment of video evidence still does not occur in most cases, probably due to the need for visual literacy.