In 2023, the headquarters of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary Powers were invaded and destroyed by thousands of people, calling for military intervention.
The investigations and criminal actions regarding January 8th are being processed at , under the report of the minister .
Analyzing all decisions in the scope of investigations and in 1,379 criminal actions, handed down between January 8, 2023 and July 5, 2024 and which are public, it is possible to have a dimension of how the Attorney General’s Office, the defense, the reporting minister and the court took their positions on the processes, as well as the main issues raised.
In view of the decisions, a timeline can be drawn relative to January 8th at the Supreme Court: four investigations were opened, at the request of the PGR, on January 12th, 2023.
From April to June 2023, complaints against the accused were received, at which time the court dismissed the arguments of incompetence to judge the actions, based on the connection between the events of January 8th and investigations involving people with jurisdiction prerogative by function.
These decisions were unanimous in the First Panel and by a majority in the plenary, defeating the ministers and .
In July 2023, criminal proceedings were carried out, with interrogations and hearings from witnesses; In August, following a request from the OAB, the actions were suspended to provide an opportunity for the (ANPP) and, from September onwards, the trials began, the vast majority of them in the virtual plenary.
During the course of the actions, it is possible to notice that there was a frequent change of defense lawyers for the accused and the case was abandoned in the final arguments phase, with the Federal Public Defender’s Office being called upon to sponsor the defense of the defendants in the absence of private representation.
The main decisions handed down in the period refer to six main points: allegation of impeachment of minister Alexandre de Moraes; ANPP approval; precautionary measures; convictions; mental health assessment resources and incidents.
The allegations were dismissed, for the most part, in a monocratic manner and for formal reasons (such as late presentation), with the decisions also being supported by the unanimous position of the court’s plenary.
From the decisions analyzed, it is possible to highlight that in 22% of criminal actions, non-criminal prosecution agreements were signed. The decisions that approved the agreements assessed the admission of the fact and the proportionality of the measures agreed with the .
The terms of the agreement include obligations to provide services to the community, provide monetary benefits, prohibit the use of social networks for the duration of the agreement and participate in .
Specifically analyzing the rapporteur’s decisions on arrest, whether in the arrest on January 8th or during the investigations and actions, 53.3% referred to the determination of arrest (either the conversion of arrest into preventive arrest, or the maintenance of preventive or its determination for those who were free) and 46.7% determined the revocation of preventive detention.
The decisions regarding precautionary measures other than prison (such as the use of an electronic ankle bracelet, suspension of authorization to carry weapons and the obligation to remain in the country), adopted by the rapporteur throughout the investigation and criminal action, for the most part, responded to defense requests: 37% of decisions relaxed imposed precautionary measures, compared to 23.6% that did not. Furthermore, 10.2% of the decisions did not revoke the precautionary measures and 29.2% of the decisions maintained them, after presenting a justification regarding the news of non-compliance.
Decisions on the merits, arising from the judgment of criminal actions, were taken by a majority of the court. Each trial brought a specific combination of votes to assess the conduct and dosimetry of the sentence. Sentences ranged from 11 years and 6 months (2.3%), 11 years and 11 months (1.4%), 13 years and 6 months (14.5%), 14 years (36.4%), 14 years and 2 months (0.5%), 16 years and 6 months (26.4%), 17 years (16.4%) and 17 years and 6 months (0.5%). Despite the different combinations of ministers’ votes, ministers André Mendonça and Kassio Nunes Marques were those who presented the deepest differences.
As this is a judgment of the last and only instance, the possibility of appeal is quite restricted. According to a precedent created in the case of (AP 470), it would only be possible to analyze infringing embargoes with the dissent of at least four ministers, which has not yet occurred in the January 8 cases being judged. Therefore, this type of appeal has been denied.
The decisions analyzed also include 15 orders to carry out tests to verify the mental health of the defendants.
The survey was carried out by the researchers at the request of Instituto Galo da Manhã, considering the decisions that are public on the STF website, given by the rapporteur minister Alexandre de Moraes and by the STF collegiate in the investigations and criminal actions resulting from January 8, until the 5 July 2024.
