The most common case of “statement vs. statement” situations occurs when someone claims to have been sexually harassed, coerced, raped, or abused, while the other person denies it—either because no sexual acts took place at all or because they were consensual.
There are rarely eyewitnesses and usually no physical evidence, either because the alleged victim comes forward a long time after the reported act or because the available evidence can support both versions, as the suspect claims the sexual contact was consensual.
One might assume that a “stalemate” exists in such a case—who should be believed? The only logical consequence should be either a case dismissal or an acquittal, as there is insufficient certainty to convict.
Unfortunately, courts in this country are not bound by strict rules about when a fact is considered proven or unproven. Judges have full discretion in evaluating evidence and statements and are not required to choose the conclusion most favorable to the defendant, even if multiple interpretations are possible.
A judge can convict based on a doubtful witness statement, even though accusations in sexual offense cases are often false. False accusations arise not only from deliberate lies driven by revenge, jealousy, self-protection, or malicious intent, but also from false memories, external influence, mental illness, and autosuggestion.
Due to these concerns, the highest courts have become particularly strict in handling statement vs. statement cases. The mere fact that a person claims to be a victim does not mean that their statement should automatically be given more weight than the defendant’s denial.
For good reason, the Federal Court of Justice requires that witness statements undergo a special credibility assessment, particularly since the accused has very limited means of defense. Required assessments include:
- Analysis of the witness’s ability to make a reliable statement
- Examination of how the statement was developed
- Investigation of possible motives for the statement
- Analysis of the statement’s quality (consistency, detail, plausibility, vividness, and structure)
- Comprehensive assessment of all circumstantial evidence (including events and circumstances beyond the testimony itself)
Court rulings that fail to follow these strict standards set by higher courts can be challenged. Experience shows that many courts do not fully apply the required credibility assessment criteria—assuming they even understand them. Unfortunately, legal training does not typically include education on evaluating witness credibility or the best interrogation techniques.
1. Mistake: Irrelevant Assessment Criteria
Courts often make serious errors in evaluating statement vs. statement cases. Frequently, completely irrelevant considerations influence the judgment, such as the alleged victim crying or shaking during testimony. However, according to scientific research, physical reactions like crying, shaking, or nervousness have no evidentiary value and should not influence judicial decision-making.
2. Mistake: Overestimating Judicial Expertise
Even when courts attempt to follow psychological assessment standards, errors often occur due to a lack of understanding or incorrect application. Judges, lacking expertise in memory psychology, perception psychology, social psychology, personality psychology, and forensic psychology, are often required to make complex assessments that would typically require specialized training.
Despite this, court rulings frequently contain phrases like “from a psychological perspective, the following conclusion can be drawn.” However, given that judges are not psychologists, such statements are highly questionable—just as no one would take a judge seriously if they attempted to perform heart surgery based on their legal education.
3. Mistake: Failure to Obtain a Credibility Assessment
It is surprising that courts rarely request forensic psychological reports on witness credibility. In fact, such assessments are conducted in only about 25% of cases. Many courts claim to have “sufficient expertise” to avoid requesting expert opinions, even though approximately 60% of credibility assessments conclude that false testimony cannot be ruled out.
4. Mistake: Poor Justification of Judicial Expertise
When courts claim to have the necessary expertise to assess witness credibility, they often fail to demonstrate this adequately. If a court claims expertise, this must apply to all members of the bench, including lay judges, who usually have no legal or psychological training.
5. Mistake: Failing to Assess Witness Competency
Courts often jump straight to credibility assessment without first determining whether a witness is even capable of making a reliable statement. The court must assess whether the witness can:
1. Accurately perceive the event in question,
2. Form a reliable memory of it,
3. Resist suggestive influences,
4. Differentiate reality from imagination,
5. And recall and verbalize the memory accurately.
6. Mistake: Poor Evaluation of Statement Quality
The core of credibility assessment is the content-based statement analysis. The theory is that a witness recounting a real event will produce a coherent, detailed, and somewhat unstructured account. However, a witness making a false statement must construct a story based on everyday knowledge and expectations, which is typically less detailed and structured.
Despite this, many courts improperly apply credibility criteria, using them mechanically rather than critically evaluating their significance.
7. Mistake: Failing to Conduct a Competence-Quality Comparison
Before concluding that a statement is experience-based, courts must determine whether the witness could have invented the statement without personal experience. If a witness, for example, is a psychologist, they may have the knowledge to fabricate a statement convincingly.
8. Mistake: Mechanical Application of Psychological Evaluation
Finally, courts must avoid simply copying psychological reports without critical analysis. The judge must actively engage with the case’s specific facts. If alternative explanations are ignored or not even considered, the judgment is flawed.
Conclusion
The “statement vs. statement” scenario presents two major challenges. First, a person can be convicted solely based on another’s statement without any objective evidence. Second, courts must meet stringent evidentiary requirements, making errors in evidence evaluation almost inevitable.
This is why it is crucial to have an attorney with deep expertise in false accusations, statement genesis, statement validity, and statement quality. By filing the right motions, errors can be uncovered, such as inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions, chronological errors, structural anomalies, lack of detail, and suspicious similarities.
Our law firm specializes in cases where “statement vs. statement” plays a role, particularly in sexual offense allegations. We work closely with renowned forensic experts to secure the best possible outcome for our clients.
