www.ijcrsee.com
811
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
Review Article
Received: July 03, 2025.
Revised: September 05, 2025.
Accepted: October 19, 2025.
UDC:
343.143:159.9
10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-811-822
© 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author: jelena@pravni-fakultet.info
Abstract: The defendant is the main procedural subject and a party in criminal proceedings. Only a natural person
who is procedurally competent to exercise their rights and duties can acquire the status of a defendant in criminal proceedings.
The procedural competence of the defendant includes two fundamental characteristics – a certain age and mental health. The
defendant’s testimony can only be obtained through interrogation. Interrogation of the defendant is an evidentiary action that
consists of the defendant’s statement regarding the criminal offense he is charged with and falls into the category of personal
evidence. The legal side of the defendant’s interrogation, which regulates his position and his set of rights and duties, as well
as legally defined institutions ensuring equality with the opposing party (i.e., the prosecutor), represents a necessary form and
condition for a court decision to be based on such evidence, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. However, aside
from its legal dimension, the interrogation also entails psychological aspects. Accordingly, this paper analyzes the position of the
defendant in criminal proceedings, as well as the psychological aspects of his participation and testimony before the competent
authorities. Considering the rights and obligations of the defendant, the available legal means that ensure procedural equality
with the prosecutor, but also the various pressures and mental states the defendant experiences (fear, uncertainty, discomfort,
shame, humiliation, etc.), along with his motivation to actively participate in the proceedings, and his ability to remain silent or
speak untruthfully, it is evident that the defendant can neither be unmotivated nor uninterested in the outcome of the proceedings.
Therefore, it was essential to consider the role and significance of the defendant’s psychological functions and personality traits,
which considerably influence both his ability to testify and the validity, truthfulness, and credibility of his statement. The paper is
methodologically based on a theoretical, primarily desk-based analysis of relevant contemporary views in domestic and foreign
theory, normative analysis of current legislative sources, inductive and deductive approaches in research, and descriptive analysis
of indicators relevant to the psychology of the defendant and the psychological foundations of his testimony in criminal proceedings.
Keywords: criminal proceedings, defendant, interrogation, evidentiary action, psychological functions, psychological
aspects of testimony formation.
Jelena Matijašević
1*
, Maja Petrović
1
, Anja Koprivica
1
1
University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Faculty of Law for Commerce and Judiciary in Novi Sad, Serbia,
e-mail: jelena@pravni-fakultet.info, maja.petrovic@pravni-fakultet.info, anja.koprivica@pravni-fakultet.info
Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings
Introduction
The defendant is a person against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated and are being
conducted, due to a founded suspicion that they committed a criminal offense charged in a specific indict-
ment. The defendant’s position in criminal proceedings is “particularly interesting, because it involves a
person whose rights may be limited (e.g., the right to liberty) or whose property may be diminished (e.g.,
by the imposition of a monetary fine)” (Mirkov, 2019, p. 162).
The defendant is “a legally independent principal criminal procedure subject and, as such, bears
the function of the defense” (Milošević and Stevanović, 1997, p. 142). The literature recognizes the view
that “the defendant is a natural person, or exceptionally a legal entity, against whom, at the request of the
authorized prosecutor, criminal proceedings are conducted to determine whether a criminal offense was
committed and whether conditions exist for the imposition of a criminal sanction” (Brkić, 2014, p. 185),
www.ijcrsee.com
812
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
as well as the opinion that “the defendant is a person against whom criminal proceedings have been
initiated and are conducted, due to a founded suspicion of committing a criminal offense, and represents
an independent principal procedural subject, who as such holds the function of the defense” (Stevanović
and Stanojević, 2005, p. 90), and that “the term ‘defendant’ refers to a natural person against whom an
authorized prosecutor files and conducts a criminal action, and the court conducts criminal proceedings
to determine whether the person is criminally responsible and whether the conditions for imposing an ap-
propriate sanction exist” (Grubač, 2004, p. 190).
According to Article 2, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a defendant is a person
against whom an indictment has been filed but not yet confirmed, or against whom a criminal charge,
private criminal complaint, or motion for the imposition of a security measure of compulsory psychiatric
treatment has been submitted, and for whom the main hearing or sentencing session has not yet been
scheduled. Additionally, the term is used as a general designation for a suspect, accused, and convicted
person. Thus, at first, the Code associates the term “defendant” with the procedural stage in which the
person is at the time of the indictment, and later expands the definition to serve as a general term for
anyone undergoing criminal prosecution. Therefore, the term “defendant” will refer to a person against
whom criminal proceedings are conducted, at all stages and phases.
The defendant is the main procedural subject and a party to the proceedings, “entirely procedur-
ally equal to the authorized prosecutor” (Matijašević, 2024, p. 220). This equality is achieved through the
defendant’s right to both material and formal defense, and through the presumption of innocence — a
fundamental principle that governs the defendant’s position in criminal proceedings and stands as a major
pillar of the rule of law and a democratic society.
Only a natural person can acquire the status of a defendant in criminal proceedings, and this per-
son must be procedurally competent to exercise their rights and duties. Procedural competence, as with
all natural persons, includes two fundamental characteristics: a certain age and mental health.
The issue of age, “as one of the essential characteristics of procedural competence and a funda-
mental requirement for acquiring the status of a defendant, is regulated by the provisions of substantive
criminal law” (Milošević and Stevanović, 1997, p. 142), as well as by the provisions of the Law on Juvenile
Criminal Offenders and Criminal Protection of Juveniles. Article 2 of this lex specialis defines the age of
the offender when the offender is a minor. A minor is considered a person who, at the time of committing
the offense, has reached the age of fourteen but has not yet turned eighteen. The law recognizes two
categories of minors: younger minors — persons aged between fourteen and sixteen, and older minors
— persons aged between sixteen and eighteen. The law also defines the term “young adults” as persons
who were eighteen at the time of the offense but not yet twenty-one at the time of trial.
Mental health in criminal proceedings is conditioned by the state of sanity, and two situations are
distinguished: the mental health of the defendant at the time of the offense, and at the time the proceed-
ings are initiated and conducted. Criminal responsibility differs between these two. It should be empha-
sized that there is a presumption of mental health — all individuals, including defendants, are presumed
to be mentally sound both at the time of the offense and during the proceedings. If there is any doubt
about a defendant’s mental state, the criminal court is obliged to determine it through forensic psychiatric
evaluation. If it is established that the defendant became mentally ill after committing the offense, the
proceedings may be suspended in the case of temporary illness, or terminated in the case of permanent
mental illness. If the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the offense, a security measure of com-
pulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a health institution or compulsory psychiatric treatment
while free may be imposed. Hence, “a person in a state of insanity will not be held criminally responsible
for committing the offense” (Perović, 2020, p. 112).
The defendant’s statement can only be obtained through interrogation. This evidentiary action consists
of the defendant’s declaration regarding the alleged criminal offense. Broadly speaking, interrogation serves
two purposes: to inform the defendant of the charges and allow him to present his defense (Damaška, 1962).
The defendant is usually the most knowledgeable about how the criminal offense occurred, so “his
statement can be very helpful in establishing the factual circumstances. The evidentiary action of inter-
rogation and the defendant’s statement remain a complex and current topic in criminal procedure law.
While legal aspects are primary, one should not ignore the fact that the notion of testimony originates in
general psychology, making its psychological aspect functionally and substantively inseparable from its
legal component” (Mirkov, 2019, p. 162).
www.ijcrsee.com
813
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
The mental processes involved in forming testimony, as well as the psychological characteristics
of participants, are the subject of forensic and criminal psychology and, together with various criminal
law institutes (like legal (in)sanity, actiones liberae in causa) form an important bridge between law and
psychology. These intersections indicate that no discipline operates in isolation and that multidisciplinary
approaches are essential in practice.
The defendant’s position is especially interesting because it cannot be equated with any other
role in criminal proceedings. For instance, unlike a witness, who might have been a chance observer, or
an expert whose knowledge may aid the court, the defendant’s position arises from the existence of a
certain level of belief that the individual committed the offense. This belief can range throughout the pro-
cess — from reasonable suspicion to certainty. Given this, along with the psychological pressures (fear,
uncertainty, discomfort, shame, humiliation, etc.) and the possibility of remaining silent or giving false
statements, it is clear that unlike other participants, the defendant cannot be indifferent or unmotivated
about the course or outcome of the trial.
A Brief Overview of the Defendant’s Position and the Evidentiary Action of
Interrogation in Criminal Proceedings
According to Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 34, paragraph 3
of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, everyone shall be presumed innocent until their guilt for a
criminal offense is established by a final court decision.
In legal theory, there are various perspectives on the legal nature of the presumption of innocence
— whether it should be understood as one of the fundamental procedural principles, as a right belonging
to the defendant as a party to the proceedings, or as a key characteristic of the defendant, such as mental
health, age, etc. (Matijašević, 2024). The presumption of innocence is often linked to the principle of in
dubio pro reo, since both are procedural guarantees that enhance the defendant’s position. It is also asso-
ciated with the principle of contradiction, which “enables the parties to freely and directly present their per-
sonal views and arguments on all facts and legal issues in the case” (Matijašević Obradović and Subotin,
2020, p. 36). Accordingly, the procedural effect of the presumption of innocence is that it “eliminates any a
priori assumption of the defendant’s guilt and remains unchanged throughout the criminal proceedings until
the final decision of the court” (Jekić, 2003, p. 127). Flower (2020, p. 150) and Nilsson (2021, p. 2) interpret
criminal trials as “an interaction between the court and the parties, where each individual must perform
their societal role to ensure the process runs smoothly, with professional and lay participants occupying
different roles, and the defendant’s position being particularly stressful as their guilt is being assessed.”
As the main procedural subject, the defendant is equal to the authorized prosecutor and is grant-
ed a set of rights and duties that define their procedural position. The basic right of the defendant is the
right to defense, which may be material or formal. This right is both statutory and constitutional, guaran-
teed under Article 33, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. From this, fundamental
right derive other procedural rights listed in Article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such as: To be
informed promptly and in a language the defendant understands of the offense charged, the nature and
grounds of the accusation, and that any statement made may be used as evidence; To remain silent or re-
fuse to answer particular questions, to present their defense freely, to plead guilty or not guilty; To defend
themselves personally or with the assistance of a legal counsel; To have their counsel present during the
interrogation; To be brought before a court without delay and tried fairly and within a reasonable time; To
review the criminal complaint, investigative reports, and expert findings before the first interrogation; To
be given sufficient time and opportunity to prepare a defense; To examine case files and inspect physical
evidence; To gather evidence for their defense; To respond to all facts and evidence presented against
them and present facts and evidence in their favor; To cross-examine prosecution witnesses and request
examination of defense witnesses under the same conditions; To use legal remedies and perform other
actions as allowed by the Code.
Article 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code strictly prohibits and penalizes the use of torture, inhumane
or degrading treatment, force, threats, coercion, deceit, medical procedures, or any other measures intended
to influence the defendant’s will or extract a confession or any other statement or act from them or any other
participant. In this context, Lach and colleagues emphasize that “national legislators are obliged to adopt
www.ijcrsee.com
814
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
provisions that not only safeguard the rights of the defendant but also adequately protect the rights of others in-
volved, including persons being examined during the criminal proceedings, as such situations can involve sec-
ondary victimization and other specific risks and discomforts” (Lach, Klubińska and Badowiec, 2022, p. 1159).
In addition to rights, the defendant, as a procedural subject equal to the prosecutor, also has cer-
tain duties. According to Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant must respond to sum-
monses from authorities and notify the competent authority of any change of address or intent to relocate.
As noted earlier, a defendant’s statement can be obtained only through interrogation. This is an
essential evidentiary action, as the defendant’s statement contains facts that may either support or go
against their interests (Matijašević, 2024, p. 327).
The interrogation is conducted only if the defendant is available to the court, i.e., if the trial is held
in the defendant’s presence. In line with legal provisions, “successful conduct of criminal proceedings re-
quires the presence of certain individuals, primarily the defendant” (Matijašević Obradović and Zarubica,
2018, p. 2). Exceptionally, this evidentiary action will not be conducted if the defendant is not available,
and conditions for trial in absentia are met (under Article 381 of the Criminal Procedure Code — trial in
absentia is allowed omly if there are strong reasons for it, and if the defendant is in hiding or unavailable
to the court, and the panel grants the motion of the prosecutor).
During interrogation, the defendant may take an active approach and provide a statement regard-
ing the alleged criminal offense, or adopt a passive stance and refrain from any statement. “The defendant
must be given the opportunity to testify, but whether they exercise this right is solely their decision” (Škulić
and Bugarski, 2015, p. 265).
The main goal of interrogation is to allow the defendant to state everything they wish to say about
the charges. Only after they have provided a statement may the authorities ask questions to clarify any
unclear or contradictory issues.
The defendant is interrogated multiple times throughout the proceedings — during the investigation,
at the main hearing before the first-instance court, and at the hearing before the appellate court. Interrogation
is conducted by the prosecutor or the court. Exceptionally, under Article 289, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Code,
during the preliminary investigation stage, police may interrogate a suspect under specific conditions. It is im-
portant to note that “for a police interrogation of a suspect to be valid, the suspect must consent and give their
statement in the presence of legal counsel. The record of this interrogation may be used as evidence, and must
be promptly submitted to the prosecutor if the prosecutor was not present” (Škulić and Bugarski, 2015, p. 269).
The interrogation process consists of two parts: (1) The competent authority first establishes the
identity of the defendant, informs them of their rights, and cautions them about their legal duties; (2) The
second part involves the actual interrogation regarding the criminal event (Bejatović et al., 2013, p. 66).
Once these prerequisites are met, the defendant who wishes to present their defense is further
questioned about the alleged crime. The Code also prescribes rules for conducting the interrogation.
According to Article 86, paragraphs 1–3 of the Code, the defendant is interrogated orally, with de-
cency and full respect for their dignity. The defendant has the right to use notes during interrogation. They
must be allowed to express themselves freely regarding all incriminating circumstances and to present all
facts in their defense. Once the defendant finishes, questions may be posed to supplement or clarify the
testimony. Questions must be clear, specific, and comprehensible; they must not be misleading, presume
an admission, or suggest answers.
If the defendant later makes statements that differ from earlier ones — especially if they retract
a confession — the authorities may, under Article 86, paragraph 4 of the Code, ask them to explain the
reasons for the differing statements. If the defendant is deaf, questions are posed in writing; if mute, an-
swers must be written; if blind, written evidence is read aloud. If interrogation cannot be conducted in this
manner, an interpreter will be used. If the defendant does not understand the language of the proceed-
ings, questions are translated.
A written record is kept of the interrogation.
In terms of the indictment, there are two primary types of testimony a defendant may give: confession
and denial. This only applies if the defendant actively participates — if the defendant remains silent, such
a defense is never interpreted as a confession and must be treated as a full denial (Škulić, 2013, p. 211).
Ultimately, the defendant’s statement is assessed as any other evidence — according to the principle of
free evaluation of evidence and the judge’s free belief. The fact that the defendant chose not to testify or answer
questions may not be considered an aggravating circumstance or used against them in any evidentiary sense.
www.ijcrsee.com
815
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
The Importance of Applying Scientific Psychological Disciplines in Criminal
Proceedings
The defendant’s interrogation, as an evidentiary action, belongs to the group of personal evi-
dence, as opposed to material evidence, because the source of information about the contested facts
is a human being. The formation of the defendant’s testimony, as well as that of other participants (e.g.,
witnesses), undergoes specific psychological processes that significantly determine the content and value
of the statement presented to the authorities as a result of interrogation (or examination, in the case of
witnesses). Foreign literature emphasizes the importance of understanding the psychological side of the
defendant’s behavior and testimony, because the approach of the parties involved “should foster public
trust in the criminal justice system while simultaneously ensuring fundamental fairness for the defendant”
(Hughes and Khan, 2024, p. 335). It is also important to highlight the role of the defendant’s motivation to
participate actively in proceedings and to provide a complete testimony. In psychology, “motives are de-
fined as organic or psychological factors that trigger or regulate behavior aimed at achieving certain goals”
(Rot, 1977, p. 87). The development of motivation is “a process of initiating, directing, and managing hu-
man activity, as motives are connected to goals, interests, and needs. They greatly influence behavior,
while the selection of motives also depends on one’s internalized value orientations, social attitudes, and
character traits” (Nikolić Ristanović and Konstantinović Vilić, 2018, p. 405).
The psychological basis of testimony formation in criminal proceedings is highly complex and in-
volves multiple processes related to perception, comprehension, memory, and reproduction of observed
events. Every testimony is formed through these phases, which significantly shape its content and char-
acteristics (Matijević and Marković, 2013, p. 233). The process can be summarized by the formula: P
(Perception) + C (Comprehension) + M (Memory) + R (Reproduction) = Testimony
The forensic psychological concept of testimony, according to the controling opinion in legal theory,
includes a narrower concept of testimony and a broader concept of testimony. According to the posi-
tion that prefers a narrower understanding, „defendant’s statement is the communication of perceived
and remembered facts or facts related to them, which are made by the interrogated persons in criminal
proceedings” (Delić, 2011, p. 2). According to the position that emphasizes the broader understanding,
“testemony is a statement that is given by any participant of the proceedings in the context of a judicial
proceeding in the broadest sense of the word, in the capacity of such a participant, and the statement can
refer to any issue that could be significant for the course and outcome of the proceeding” (Aćimović, 1987,
p. 205; Aćimović, 1980, p. 35).
The importance of forensic and criminal psychology in criminal proceedings is indisputable. The
knowledge provided by these disciplines — especially during evidence gathering and understanding the
psychological processes of participants (notably the defendant) — is invaluable. Forensic (or so-called le-
gal) psychology is a scientific psychological discipline whose „subject of study consists of psychological pro-
cesses and characteristics, as well as their inherent behaviors of participants in court proceedings” (Jekić,
2001). In general, „the subject of study of both forensic and criminal psychology is psychological processes
and behaviors, only in the case of forensic psychology, it is the psychological processes and behaviors of
the participants in the judicial process (accused, witnesses, injured parties, prosecutor, judge, jury mem-
bers), while in the case of criminal psychology, it is about the psychological processes and behaviors of the
participants in the criminal investigation (suspect, injured party, witness) (Baić and Deljkić, 2019, pp. 11-12).
Some foreign scholars argue that “the utility of forensic and criminal psychology techniques in
criminal trials still requires research — including whether such techniques benefit or hinder the careers
of legal professionals or outcomes for their clients” (Wilson, 2019, p. 4). Other authors note the lack of
research into whether psychological techniques have a negative or positive impact on lawyers, officials,
or even psychologists themselves, particularly in terms of effects on the defendants (Kim, Becker-Cohen
and Serakos, 2015; Spaulding, Cook and Avila, 2014; Wexler, 2013; Winick, 2013). Nevertheless, the
growing role of forensic and criminal psychology is evident both in Serbia and internationally, especially in
the domain of therapeutic jurisprudence — when defendants are addicts or persons with substance use
disorders. It is said that “the insensitivity of the regular judicial system toward individuals suffering from
drug or alcohol addiction has catalyzed the development of therapeutic justice in comparative law, aiming
to improve rehabilitation and reduce recidivism in criminal proceedings” (Tešović, 2024, p. 135).
www.ijcrsee.com
816
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
Methodology and Source of Research Data
The subject of analysis in this paper is the position of the defendant in criminal proceedings, along
with the psychological aspects of his behavior and testimony before the competent procedural authorities.
As previously emphasized in the introduction, the defendant’s role in criminal proceedings is par-
ticularly interesting, as it cannot be equated with that of any other procedural participant. Considering the
rights and obligations of the defendant, the available legal instruments that ensure procedural equality
with the opposing party — i.e., the public prosecutor — as well as the various pressures and states the
defendant experiences (fear, uncertainty, discomfort, shame, humiliation, etc.), together with his motiva-
tion to actively participate in the proceedings and the option to remain silent or be untruthful, it is clear that,
unlike other primary or secondary procedural actors, the defendant cannot be indifferent or unmotivated
about the course of the proceedings, nor uninterested in its final outcome.
The paper is methodologically based on: Theoretical,primarily desk analysis of relevant contemporary
positions in both domestic and international literature; Normative analysis of current legislative sources;
Inductive and deductive approaches to research; Descriptive analysis of relevant indicators concerning the
psychology of the defendant and the psychological foundations of their testimony in criminal proceedings.
The Psychology of the Defendant and the Psychological Foundations of the
Defendant’s Testimony in Criminal Proceedings
From the perspective of criminal procedure and criminalistics, the proper assessment of the truthful-
ness of testimonies by procedural subjects — as personal sources of evidence — is of great importance.
The reliability of such personal evidence (e.g., the defendant’s interrogation or a witness’s examination)
is evaluated, on the one hand, by comparing it with other established evidence and testimonies (and, if
necessary, by conducting confrontations with co-defendants or other witnesses), and on the other hand,
through the application of various psychological techniques and expertise. Knowledge of the psychology
of testimony is, therefore, a highly valuable tool, given the complexity of the psychological foundations
involved in the formation of testimony.
Accordingly, a defendant’s testimony may be classified as truthful or untruthful. A truthful testimony
is complete, objective, and corresponds to the factual situation or actual event. An untruthful testimony
may be either unintentionally false (i.e., mistaken) or intentionally false (i.e., a lie).
To understand the psychology of the defendant and their testimony, it is important to analyze both:
Psychological functions or mental processes involved in the production of testimony, Psychological traits
or personality characteristics (e.g., temperament, character, abilities, interests, needs, attitudes, etc.).
The mental processes involved in the testimony of a procedural subject (obtained through inter-
rogation or examination) are outlined in the following table:
Table 1. Mental Functions (Processes) Underlying Testimony of the Procedural Subject as a Personal Source of
Evidence
Mental Functions (Processes)
Cognitive (Intellectual) Functions Conative (Volitional) Function Other Mental Functions
1. Memory Drives (Motives) Attention
2. Perception Emotions Consciousness
3. Thinking Will
4. Intelligence
Source: Mirkov, 2016; Baić and Deljkić, 2019
Perception is a complex mental function and the “first psychological function in the formation of
testimony” (Mirkov, 2016, p. 287). It is defined as “a complex mental process that begins when a sensory
organ registers a stimulus, which then travels from the specific sensory organ to areas of the cerebral cor-
tex, where it is transformed into a sensation” (Milovanović, 2005, p. 29). The reliability of perception can be
www.ijcrsee.com
817
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
compromised during testimony “due to the selective nature of perception, logical mechanisms of comple-
tion, and the influence of personal attitudes, desires, and prejudices” (Golubović, Lakić and Ilić, 2002, p. 57).
Building upon perception, attention plays a vital role in other mental processes — especially in
memory — and is characterized by alertness (vigilance) and concentration (tenacity). Modern cognitive
psychology emphasizes the “multi-layered nature of attention, distinguishing between visual and audi-
tory attention, as well as attention in perceptual information processing, cognitive control, and response
generation” (Anderson, 2015; Baić and Deljkić, 2019, p. 66). The main properties of attention are: span,
intensity, selectivity, direction, and mobility. Testimony reliability may be impaired by attention disorders —
specifically in vigilance or tenacity — often manifesting as distractibility, or aprosexia, which some authors
define as a lack of concentration.
Memory is a mental function “that participates in the creation of testimony and arises in conjunction
with perception, expression, thinking, and other mental traits and personality characteristics” (Aćimović,
1987; Mirkov, 2016, p. 294). It is believed that “a defendant who has clearly remembered the circum-
stances of the offense can effectively recall possible evidence, witnesses, and relevant facts, thereby be-
ing able to refute the charges or at least influence their legal qualification” (Mirkov, 2016, p. 296). Memory
is the brain’s ability to store and retrieve information (Golubović, Lakić and Ilić, 2002, p. 58). As Mirkov
(2016, p. 294) explains, memory is composed of five elements, listed in the following table:
Table 2. Elements of Memory Involved in the Formation of Testimony
Elements of Memory
First
element
Fixation
(registration of an
engram)
The initial phase in the process of memory, characterized by the ability to retain certain
material in the form of an engram. This ability has its organic and physiological basis — it
is the moment of concentration of the senses and consciousness for the fixation of the
stimulus that is to become the object of awareness.
Second
element
Retention
A key element in the memory process, because that which was not previously retained
in consciousness cannot later be recognized, nor reproduced.
Third
element
Evocation
The exertion of intellectual effort to “recall” what was perceived and what one wishes
to reproduce. It can be intentional or spontaneous. From the perspective of our topic,
intentional evocation is particularly important, because during the interrogation, the
defendant is always reminded of the circumstances of the accusation, which requires
him to recall an event from the past. Intentional evocation is even more pronounced
during the questioning of the defendant.
Forth
element
Recognition
In the chronology of the process, it could be said to be a phase, but one that does not
necessarily precede reproduction and may even occur without evocation. Recognition
is most commonly present in communication and represents incomplete memory or
incomplete presentation of well-remembered content.
Fifth
element
Reproduction
It represents the part of memory process that enables the preservation of the past without
renewed perception of the information. Reproduction is the restoration of content in full
and in the order in which it was experienced and remembered, and is the true and best
evidence of memory. Interrogations of parties are conducted more often at the level of
recognition, while the presentation of facts and data — especially in the context of giving
a confession — for the purpose of establishing evidence of guilt, should be conducted
on the basis of reproduction.
Source: Mirkov, 2016, pp. 294-295; Kostić, 2000, pp. 70-73; Marić and Lukić, 1998, p. 28; Ćirić and Dimitrijević, 2009, p. 32
Testimony reliability can be compromised by memory disorders, such as amnesia, hypomnesia, hy-
permnesia, or transient forgetfulness, caused either organically or by fatigue, emotional states, or excitement.
Thinking as a mental activity represents the directed shaping of signs and symbols in order to come
to an understanding of relationships and connections between phenomena (Rot, 2010) and is undoubt-
edly the most complex psychological process, which is actually the link between all other psychological
processes that participate in the creation of statements and unifies them into a whole. Therefore, it can
be said that thinking is “a mental function by which a person, using thought operations, perceives the real
relationships between objects and phenomena and draws appropriate conclusions based on that” (Marić
and Lukić, 1998, p. 34). The literature mentions “individual experience, intelligence, motives, certain emo-
tional processes” as factors that are important for the thinking process (Delić, 2008, p. 47). The credibility
of statements can be compromised if a person has thought disorders that manifest themselves in several
www.ijcrsee.com
818
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
ways: “verbosity (statements is not separated from the irrelevant); slowness of the flow of thought (speech
is drawn out and slowed down, and the impulse to speak is reduced); block in thought (sudden interrup-
tion of the continuity of the thought process and interruption of the presentation of the started thought);
incoherent thinking (the connection between the expressed thoughts is deficient); crazy ideas (thought
contents that are unrealistic, illogical, absurd and unacceptable for the environment), obsessions or ob-
sessive ideas (thoughts that forcefully appear in a person’s mind, against their will); overestimated ideas
(contents that have real significance in a person’s life, but are excessively emphasized and exaggerated)”
(Baić and Deljkić, 2019, p. 78).
In criminal proceedings, various individuals appear, each with their own interests, motives, reasons,
and characteristics, which must be taken into account when planning and conducting the interrogation
of the defendant and the examination of witnesses. Therefore, “the examination of the personality of the
defendant is often of crucial importance for making the correct decision regarding which criminal sanction
to impose on the perpetrator of a criminal offense” (Drakić, 2014, p. 253). In line with this, special attention
should be given to the intelligence and drives, i.e., the motives of the defendant in criminal proceedings.
Namely, intelligence is a significant personality trait and is defined as a person’s ability to recognize facts,
their relations to objects and phenomena, acquire new knowledge, and solve problems, whereas drives
(motives) are actually impulses that prompt a person to pursue their own interests. Taking into account
the situation in which the defendant may find themselves during criminal proceedings, their intelligence
and motivation to participate in the process and refute, either wholly or partially, the allegations made
against them, the aforementioned psychological functions may be “a significant factor in the conduct of
their defense.” It should be noted that an intelligent defendant carefully prepares the commission of a
criminal offense, strives not to leave any traces behind, nor to retain any items related to the crime, and
as a result, the available evidence concerning the commission of the offense is usually less abundant.
When it comes to the interrogation of the defendant, their ability to perceive essential connections in the
examiner’s questions becomes apparent, along with their skill in identifying what the examiner is seeking
to discover and what is concealed as important within those questions. Thus, the defendant can easily
avoid giving the answer the examiner seeks or may present certain facts differently — facts which, in the
absence of other evidence, may lead the procedural authority to harbor doubt regarding the existence of
certain circumstances” (Mirkov, 2016, p. 304). The credibility of the testimony may be compromised if the
person exhibits certain quantitative or qualitative disorders in drives, i.e., motives, or displays tendencies
toward specific reactive states that may fall into the category of temporary mental disturbances affecting
intelligence as a psychological function.
Finally, the importance of emotions (as a subjective reflection of the human psyche towards to the
stimuli from the outside world), will (as a function that is essentially related to drives) and consciousness
(as the highest psychological process that establishes, synchronizes and controls the development of
the human psyche as a whole) as psychological functions, which are very complex and can significantly
determine the attitude of the accused and his role in the criminal proceedings, should be emphasized.
By studying the psychology of the defendant and his testimony in criminal proceedings, it can be
concluded that various processes at the level of cognitive, affective, and behavioral functioning determine
the specific psychological traits and characteristics of each individual. What must be taken into account
during the interrogation of the defendant in criminal proceedings, as well as during the assessment of
the truthfulness and credibility of his testimony, is certainly his psychological vulnerability, which “refers
to the psychological characteristics or mental states of a person that, in certain cases, influence personal
sources to provide inaccurate, unreliable, and incorrect information” (Gudjonsson, 2003; Meissner and
Russano, 2003; Baić and Deljkić, 2019, p. 106). Four forms of psychological vulnerability are distin-
guished and are presented in the following table.
www.ijcrsee.com
819
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
Table 3. Forms of Psychological Vulnerability of the Defendant in Criminal Proceedings
Psychological Vulnerability
Mental Disorders Abnormal Mental States Intellectual Functioning Personality Characteristics
1. Mentar illnesses 1. Anxiety 1. Inability to understand questions 1. Suggestibility
2. Learning disorders 2. Panic attacks 2. Inability to respond 2. Complience
3. Pesonality disorders 3. Phobias 3. Inability to comprehend the
significance of the interrogation
3. Tacit agreement
Source: Gudjonsson, 2003; Gudjonsson, 2003
It is evident that these forms of psychological vulnerability significantly affect both the defendant’s
ability to testify and the validity, truthfulness, and credibility of the testimony itself.
Conclusion
The defendant is the principal procedural subject and a party in criminal proceedings. Only a natu-
ral person who is procedurally competent to exercise their rights and duties may acquire the status of a
defendant. Procedural competence, like that of natural persons in general, is determined by two basic
conditions — a certain age and mental health.
As stated in the paper, the defendant’s testimony can only be obtained through interrogation. The
interrogation is an evidentiary action consisting of the defendant’s statement regarding the criminal of-
fense they are charged with, and it belongs to the category of personal evidence.
The importance of the defendant’s interrogation as an evidentiary action is not only reflected in
its undeniable practical relevance, but also in the fact that it is placed first among evidentiary actions in
the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia. The legal aspects of interrogation — including
the regulation of the defendant’s position, the scope of rights and duties, and the institutional framework
ensuring equality with the opposing party, i.e., the prosecutor — represent an essential form and condition
for the court to base its decision on such evidence. However, beyond its legal dimension, the interrogation
also has significant psychological implications.
Accordingly, the subject of this paper is the position of the defendant in criminal proceedings, as
well as the psychological aspects of his participation and testimony before the competent authorities.
This research may contribute to the unification of approaches to assessing defendants’ statements by
integrating the legal provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia with established
models of psychological vulnerability and memory formation. Accordingly, future empirical research could
be aimed at quantitatively assessing the correlation between the psychological functions on which the
testimony of a criminal subject is based, and the psychological vulnerabilities that significantly affect both
the defendant’s ability to give his or her testimony, as well as the validity, truthfulness, and credibility of the
testimony itself, in relation to the rate of false confessions or refusal to give testimony to judicial authori-
ties. What could also be the subject of further research is how often psychological factors that influence
the formation of the defendant’s statement are taken into account and how they are interpreted in the
reasoning of the court verdict.
Given the defendant’s rights and obligations in the proceedings, the legal instruments that ensure
procedural equality with the prosecutor, and the array of psychological pressures and emotional states the
defendant undergoes (fear, uncertainty, discomfort, shame, humiliation, etc.), as well as the defendant’s
motivation to actively participate in the process and the option to remain silent or even to speak untruthfully
— all of these point to the fact that, unlike other primary or secondary procedural subjects, the defendant
cannot be indifferent or unmotivated with regard to the proceedings, nor uninterested in the final outcome.
Therefore, it was important to examine the role and influence of the defendant’s psychological
functions and personality traits, which significantly affect both the capacity of the defendant to provide
testimony and the validity, truthfulness, and credibility of that testimony.
www.ijcrsee.com
820
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the academic community within the Faculty of Law for Commerce and
Judiciary in Novi Sad for their support in publishing this manuscript.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material,
further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.M., M.P. and A.K.; methodology, J.M. and M.P.; software, A.K.; formal analy-
sis, J.M.; writing-original draft preparation, J.M.; writing-review and editing, J.M., M.P. and A.K. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
References
Aćimović, M. (1987). Psihologija zločina i suđenja, sudska psihologija [Psychology of crimes and trials, forensic psychology],
Beograd, Savremena administracija.
Aćimović, M. (1980). Uvod u psihologiju krivičnog postupka [Introduction to the psychology of criminal procedure]. Beograd,
Savremena administracija.
Baić, V. & Deljkić, I. (2019). Kriminalistička psihologija [Criminal psychology], Sarajevo, Fakultet za kriminalistiku, kriminologiju
i sigurnosne studije.
Bejatović, S., Škulić, M., Đurđić, V., Ilić, G., Čvorović, D., Milojević, D., Đorđević, D., Kiurski, J., Matić, M., Tintor, J., Subotić,
D., Komlen Nikolić, L., Lazić, R., Nenadić, S., Trninić, V., & Plazinić, M. (2013). Priručnik za javne tužioce za primenu
novog Zakonika o krivičnom postupku [Handbook for public prosecutors for the implementation of the new Criminal
Procedure Code] (ur.: Bejatović, S., Škulić, M. i Ilić, G.). Beograd, Udruženje javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca
Srbije. https://uts.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/prirucnik.zkp_.novi_.pdf
Brkić, S. (2014). Krivično procesno pravo I [Criminal procedural law I], Novi Sad, Pravni fakultet u Novom Sadu.
Ćirić Z. & Dimitrijević B. (2009). Osnovi sudske psihijatrije i psihologije [Basics of forensic psychiatry and psychology]. Niš,
Studenski kulturni centar.
Damaška, M. (1962). Okrivljenikov iskaz kao dokaz u suvremenom krivičnom procesu [The defendant’s testimony as evidence
in the modern criminal process], Zagreb, Narodne novine.
Delić, N. (2011). Pojam i struktura iskaza - sudskopsihološki aspekt [Term and structure of testimony - forensic psychological
aspect]. Godišnjak Pravnog fakulteta, 2 (2), 1-19. https://godisnjak.pravni.ues.rs.ba/pdf%202011%20br2/Pojam%20
i%20struktura%20iskaza%20sudskopsiholo%C5%A1ki%20aspekt.pdf
Delić, N. (2008). Psihologija iskaza pojednih učesnika u krivičnom postupku [Psychology of testimony of individual participants
in criminal proceedings], Beograd, Dosije.
Drakić, D. (2014). Krivično pravo i psihologija – tačke spajanja [Criminal law and psychology - points of convergence], Zbornik
radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 48 (2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns48-6736
Flower, L. (2020). Interactional Justice: The Role of Emotions in the Performance of Loyalty. New York, Routledge.
Golubović, G. Z., Lakić, A. & Ilić, B. (2002). Osnovi forenzičke psihologije i psihopatologije [Basics of forensic psychology and
psychopathology]. Bor, Zdravstveni centar Bor.
Grubač, M. (2004). Krivično procesno pravo: Uvod i opšti deo [Criminal procedural law: Introduction and general part], Beo-
www.ijcrsee.com
821
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
grad, Službeni glasnik.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook, West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons.
Hughes, E. & Khan, K. (2024). One Court, One State, One Year: What We Don’t Know About Criminal Defendants’ Testimony and
Why It Matters, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 57 (2), pp. 333-384. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol57/iss2/2/
Jekić, Z. (2003). Krivično procesno pravo: osmo izmenjeno i dopunjeno izdanje [Criminal procedural law, Eighth Revised Edi-
tion]. Beograd, Dimitrije Davidović.
Jekić, Z. (2001). Krivično procesno pravo [Criminal procedural law], Beograd, Savremena administracija.
Kim, K., Becker-Cohen, M., and Serakos, M. (2015). The Processing and Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in the Criminal
Justice System: A Scan of Practice and Background Analysis, Washington, DC, Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/
research/publication/processing-and-treatment-mentally-ill-persons-criminal-justice-system
Kostić, I. (2000). Kriminalistička psihologija [Criminal psychology]. Beograd, Viša škola unutrašnjih poslova.
Lach, A., Klubińska, M. & Badowiec, R. (2022). Conicting interests of witnesses and defendants in a fair criminal trial – can a
hearing by videoconference be the best instrument to reconcile them?, Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal,
8 (3), 1157-1199. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i3.737
Marić, J. & Lukić, M. (1998). Pravna medicina [Legal medicine]. Beograd, Barex.
Matijević, M. & Marković, M. (2013). Kriminalistika [Criminalistics]. Novi Sad, Pravni fakultet za privredu I pravosuđe u Novom Sadu.
Matijašević, J. (2024). Krivično procesno pravo, opšto deo: drugo izmenjeno i dopunjeno izdanje [Criminal procedural law,
General Part: Second Revised Edition], Novi Sad, Pravni fakultet za privredu i pravosuđe u Novom Sadu.
Matijašević Obradović, J. & Subotin, M. (2020). Načelo kontradiktornosti kao opšti element prava na pravičan postupak u
praksi Krivičnog suda Srbije i Evropskog suda za ljudska prava [The principle of contradiction as a general element of
the right to a fair procedure in the practice of the Criminal Court of Serbia and the European Court of Human Rights],
Pravo – teorija i praksa, 37 (1), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2001034M
Matijašević Obradović, J. & Zarubica, S. (2018). Opasnost od bekstva kao razlog za određivanje pritvora– legislativni tretman
i primeri iz sudske prakse [The threat of escape as a reason for the determination of detention – a legislative treat-
ment and examples from judicial practice]. Pravo – teorija i praksa, 35 (4-6), 1-16. https://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/
pdf/0352-3713/2018/0352-37131806001M.pdf
Meissner, A. C., & Russano, B. M. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and False Confessions:Research and Recom-
mendations, The Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 1 (1), 53-64. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/view-
content.cgi?article=1010&context=christian_meissner
Milovanović, R. (2005). Psihologija kriminaliteta [Psychology of crime]. Beograd, Policijska akademija.
Milošević, M., Stevanović, Č. (1997). Krivično procesno pravo [Criminal procedural law], Beograd, Policijska akademija.
Mirkov, Ž. (2019). O pojmu okrivljenog i njegovom iskazu u krivičnom postupku [On the notion of the defendant and his testi-
mony in criminal proceedings]. Civitas, 9(2), 161-176. https://civitas.rs/09/9-2/Zeljko-Mirkov-9-2-srb.pdf
Mirkov, Ž. (2016). Pravni i psihološki aspekti iskaza okrivljenog [Legal and psychological aspects of the defendant’s statement].
Doktorska disertacija, Novi Sad, Pravni fakultet za privredu I pravosuđe u Novom Sadu.
Nilsson, E. (2021). Performance of the Defendant Role: An Ethnographic Study of Interaction at Criminal Trials in Sweden.
Master’s thesis, Sweden, Lund University.
Nikolić Ristanović & Konstantinović Vilić (2018). Kriminologija [Criminology], četvrto izmenjeno i dopunjeno izdanje, Beograd,
Izdavačko-gračko preduzeće „Prometej“. https://www.vds.rs/File/KnjigaKriminologija_2018.pdf
Perović, M. (2020). Određeni problemi utvrđivanja neuračunljivosti [Specic problems of establishing mental capacity]. Pravni
horizonti, 3 (3), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10804747
Rot, N. (2010). Psihologija ličnosti [Personality psychology]. Beograd, Zavod za udžbenike.
Rot, N. (1977). Psihologija ličnosti, deveto izdanje [Personality Psychology, Ninth Edition], Beograd, Zavod za udžbenike i
nastavna sredstva.
Spaulding, W., Cook, E., and Avila, A. (2014). Therapeutic jurisprudence and recovery from severe and disabling mental
illness. In Bornstein, B. H. & Wiener, R. L. (Eds.): Justice, conict and wellbeing: Multidisciplinary perspectives, pp.
125–148, Germany, Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0623-9_5
Stevanović, Č., Stanojević, P. (2005). Krivično procesno pravo [Criminal procedural law], Niš, Sven.
Škulić, M., Bugarski, T. (2015). Krivično procesno pravo [Criminal procedural law]. Novi Sad, Centar za izdavačku delatnost,
Pravni fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu
Škulić, M. (2013). Krivično procesno pravo [Criminal procedural law]. Beograd, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
Tešović, O. (2024). Problem-solving courts in comparative law: Com-bination of therapy and responsibility, NBP. Nauka, bez-
bednost, policija, 29 (2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo29-48482
Ustav Republike Srbije [Constitution of the Republic of Serbia], “Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 98/2006 i 115/2021.
Wexler, D. B., (2013). Getting and Giving: What therapeutic jurisprudence can get from and give to positive Criminology. Phoe-
nix Law Review, 6, 907-915. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2220509
www.ijcrsee.com
822
Matijašević, J., Petrović, M., & Koprivica, A. (2025). Psychology of the Defendant and his Testimony in Criminal Proceedings,
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 811-822.
Wiener, R. L. & Brank, E. M. (2013). Problem solving courts : social science and legal perspectives, New York, NY, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6
Wilson, T. (2019). Courtroom Psychology during Criminal Trials and its Therapeutic Role on Victims and Offenders, doctoral
dissertation, Minneapolis, USA, Walden University.
Zakon o maloletnim učiniocima krivičnih dela i krivičnopravnoj zaštiti maloletnih lica [Law on juvenile offenders and criminal
protection of minors], “Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 85/2005.
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku [Criminal Procedure Code], “Sl. glasnik RS”, br. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013,
55/2014, 35/2019, 27/2021 - odluka US i 62/2021 - odluka US.
