Despite slicing () and in five separate pieces, the (Attorney General’s Office) maintained identical content in all of them, except for the initial and final part where the accused in each one are listed.
With this, the indicative is that, accepted the complaints, the criminal actions must be processed separately in the (Federal Supreme Court).
According to criminal law experts consulted by SheetIf the proceedings are proceeded separately, it is possible that there is damage to the action of the defendants’ defenses, since the conduct and evidence discussed in one action may have impacts on others.
They also point out that the ideal would be that the accused had a joint judgment, so as to prevent contradiction between final decisions in one action and that the same fact is eventually interpreted and valued in different ways.
Questioned by Sheet As for the reason for the option for slicing and if the agency understands that the judgment should be joint or separated, the Attorney’s Office stated only, through its advisory, that “the presentation of the complaints reflects the procedural strategy adopted by the PGR as the holder of the criminal action.”
Also asked about other cases in which he sliced complaints with identical content, the agency said it does not have this type of survey.
Bolsonaro was formally accused last week by the Attorney General, under. In the same complaint, there are seven others, who, according to PGR, formed “the crucial core of the criminal organization.”
The others were accused on the same date as members of the same criminal organization, but with different functions, such as the core of “Strategic Disinformation Operations”. Appointed as a member of this last nucleus, the former presenter of young Pan Paulo Figueiredo, who lives in the United States, was denounced alone.
As showed the Sheetministers of the Supreme and therefore before the election year.
Raquel Scalcon, who is a FGV Criminal Law teacher and lawyer, states that slicing usually happens when a new accused must be added later or when new information arises, but the division for complaints made is uncommon at the same time.
She considers that separate processing may have an impact on the broad defense and contradictory of the process and that there may be a difficulty in delimiting what each accused has done.
“How will what has been said in one process reverberate in the other? How will the defenses defend themselves?” She asks. “How will this dialogue between the processes be?
Davi Tangerino, professor of Criminal Law at UERJ (Rio de Janeiro State University) and a criminalist lawyer, evaluates, in turn, that it is a constitutional guarantee that a legal situation does not extend indefinitely and that an action with 34 defendants would take a long time. In this context, he sees no problem in slicing for a faster progress.
Even with separate processing, he evaluates that the ideal would be to perform a joint judgment. “If you judge everyone together, you decrease the risk of having contradictory decisions,” he says.
He also argues that the most efficient would be to allow, from the beginning, that parts of a process can, for example, participate in the inquiry of a witness in another action.
The lawyer Vinícius Assumpção, who is a doctor of law from UnB (University of Brasilia) and director of IBCCRIM (Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences), sees as the main risk of the separate processing that there is contradiction between the evidence and hearing of witnesses in each process.
As for the hypothesis that there is a kind of cross participation of defenses in different actions or a joint judgment, he does not see as a real possibility, arguing that this would be very difficult to align and that the option for slicing points to another direction.
“Inevitably, in either process, there will be greater questions of the defense,” he says. “It’s very difficult for all this to align.”
For Gustavo Badaró, professor of Criminal Procedural Law at USP (University of São Paulo) and criminal lawyer, slicing generates a great damage to the defendants’ defenses, who would have a partial view of the facts, against the accusation, which would preserve a global view.
He compares the situation and says that there were already reports separated by parties, contractors, with identical parts of each other.
In his assessment, there is also a damage from the point of view of the impartiality of whom he will judge, giving as a hypothetical example the judgment of a defendant of the fifth case, then the other four have already been tried.
“He [juiz] He has already formed a prior opinion about whether or not those facts existence, but because of other evidence and other arguments in which the defendant had no opportunity to speak up, “he says.
