Bevisvärdering av utsagor i brottmål

Sammanfattning: In cases where statements constitute the main evidence, the outcome is dependent on how the assessment of veracity and reliability is made (statement analysis). It is often difficult to make statement analysis, since there is no reliable method of distinguishing true statements from false ones. The Swedish Supreme Court has addressed this question, however, in several cases. The main topic of the thesis is to give an account of how veracity and realiability assessments should be made on the basis of the Swedish Supreme Court cases.Statement analysis is an important research topic in the field of psychology. Research results in the aforementioned field indicate, which is also shown in the study, that statement analysis, as employed by the Supreme Court, has gained partial support only. Psychological research shows that there is a mismatch between rules of experience, which are assumed to be able to discriminate between true statements and false ones, and indicators which have in fact that potential. The rules of experience offered by the Supreme Court are only partially reliable as regards their discriminatory power.The main rule in the Swedish courts stipulates that parties should make oral submissions directly to the court. The underlying assumption is that such a procedure is essential if the veracity and reliability assessment is to be made correctly. This assumption can be questioned, however, from a psychological point of view. Alternative ways of presentation demonstrate the same or better results when it comes to making veracity and reliability assesments. Further, the study shows that the courts fail to consider factors which can influence memory – even unconsciously – from the time of a given event until a statement is made in the court. This emphasizes the importance of statement analysis being performed by the courts based on submissions made at the earliest possible stage of the legal process.