Art. 368 LECrim
When the parade is practised
All who direct a charge at a specific person must recognise them judicially, if the judge, the accusers or the accused themselves consider the measure necessary on solid grounds: the parade is not automatic, but refusing it when identity is the axis of the case weakens the prosecution, and requesting it in time is sometimes a defensive play. When the identification is doubtful and there are only photographs, forcing the parade with safeguards can dismantle a weak designation. The prosecution’s refusal to practise it is placed on the record: whoever avoids the identity test fears its result.
Art. 369 LECrim
The practice of the parade
The recognition is practised by placing before the witness the person concerned together with others of similar external circumstances, and the witness states whether the person is in the parade and designates them. Real similarity (age, build, features, clothing) is the star requirement: parades with a dark-haired suspect among blond fillers are annulled, and the records and photographs of the composition are the proof of their (in)validity.
In practice
The neutral-observer standard
We demand a photograph of the composition of the parade in the record: without it, “similarity” is an act of faith. Recognisable police fillers, flagrant racial or age differences and signalling clothing annul the measure: the standard is that a neutral observer could not guess the suspect.
Art. 370 LECrim
Several witnesses
With several witnesses, the measure is practised separately with each one, preventing them from communicating: contamination between witnesses (“my husband already pointed at him”) destroys the individual value of each designation and is explored in cross-examination. Separation includes waiting rooms and mobile phones: witnesses who comment on WhatsApp before entering contaminate all the same. We always ask at trial what they spoke about among themselves and with the officers: the chain of contamination surfaces in the details.
Arts. 373 and 762.8ª LECrim
Identification of the accused
They regulate the nominal identification of the investigated person and, in the abbreviated procedure, the accreditation of identity by any means. The modern discussion is not the name but the attribution: that the identified person is actually the author. Doubtful nominal identity (undocumented persons, aliases) is resolved by any means, but the attribution of the act demands the full standard: cases against “the one known as X” require supplementary rigour in every record.
Photographic displays
A means of investigation, not evidence
The police photographic display is a legitimate means of investigation, not evidence: it guides inquiries, but it requires neutral albums without indications. Its defects (a single photo, suggested designations) contaminate the later parade according to reiterated doctrine. “Spontaneous” recognitions in corridors or on social networks are assessed with extreme caution: the defence reconstructs how the witness arrived at our client’s face.
In practice
The complete album and the Instagram problem
We request the complete album displayed and the record of the photographic measure: albums with one photo or with the suspect repeated are documented suggestion. Recognitions through social networks prior to any measure (the victim who “investigates” on Instagram) are explored in cross-examination: they fix an image that contaminates everything afterwards.
Evidentiary value
From the police report to the trial
A valid investigative parade reaches the trial through ratification and adversarial examination; the direct designation at trial, years later and with the accused sitting in the dock, has a recognisedly weak value on its own. A conviction requires corroborations: without them, the isolated visual identification is classic ground for acquittals and successful appeals.
In practice
The science of memory in the courtroom
The courtroom designation without a valid prior parade is worth little (reiterated doctrine): years later and with the accused in the dock, reliability is minimal. We demand objective corroborations and bring the science of memory (stress factors, weapon focus, cross-racial identification): convictions based on a single, late identification are appealed with growing success.
