Minister Kassio Nunes Marques of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) asked for a view (more time for analysis) and suspended the trial that could lead to Mrs Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) to lose his mandate.
There is no date for the resumption of the vote. The Supreme Court’s Internal Regulations predicts that the Minister who asks for a view must return the process for judgment within 90 days or the case is automatically released to be included again on the agenda.
The deputy is defendant for illegal possession of a weapon and illegal embarrassment with the use of firearms. She responds to the process for chasing a man with a pistol on the eve of the second round of the 2022 elections.
When the complaint was received in August 2024, Nunes Marques and André Mendonça, both nominated by former President Jair Bolsonaro to the Supreme Court, were the only ones who voted against the opening of the process.
Four ministers voted to condemn the deputy and declare the loss of his mandate. They are: Gilmar Mendes (rapporteur), Carmen Lúcia, Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino. Six votes are required to form a majority at the trial.
As a rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes opened the votes and suggested a sentence of 5 years and 3 months in semi -open regime. He argued that the Supreme Court decrees the loss of the MP’s mandate as a consequence of the criminal conviction.
Continues after advertising
If the position is confirmed by the majority of the plenary, Carla Zambelli loses her mandate, but only after the final judgment of the case, that is, after all the appeals are exhausted.
Carla Zambelli chased a black man along with her security guards in the Jardins neighborhood, in the south of São Paulo, on the eve of the second round of the election. The deputy drew the gun and ran after journalist Luan Araújo to a restaurant in the region. She reacted after hearing that “tomorrow is Lula” and “you will go back to the manhole where they should not have left.”
In denouncing the deputy, the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) argued that, despite the possession of a weapon for personal use, it was not allowed to the “ostensible management” of weaponry in public spaces. In PGR’s evaluation, the deputy’s conduct put the collectivity at risk. The complaint also states that the journalist did not offer “danger or real threat” to justify the use of the weapon.
Continues after advertising
Vote
In his vote, Gilmar Mendes stated that the deputy’s authorization for the possession of a firearm for personal defense “does not cover the ostensible use of weaponry, nor the permanence in public places.”
“The possession of a firearm for self -defense is not led to authorizing that the bearer pronounces other people on a public road with her firearm, albeit supposedly criminal, in situations where her physical integrity or third parties is not at risk,” said Gilmar.
The minister also argued that, even if the deputy was offended, she could not “embarrass” Luan with the gun. “Criminal law provides for specific mechanisms to deal with crimes against honor and threats and do not legitimize any form of armed retaliation.”
Continues after advertising
Minister Cármen Lúcia also considered that the deputy embarrassed Luan “through a serious threat exercised with firearms, not exercising her freedom to come and go.”
Alexandre de Moraes argued that the evidence of the process “show, in a fullest way, that the defendant embarrassed the victim to remain in place against his will, submitting her the situation of armed intimidation, without any legitimate justification for such conduct.”
Flávio Dino argued that the Federal Constitution “demands from public agents a conduct based on essential values, such as honesty, respect for the lives of others, prudence and commitment to public interest.”
Continues after advertising
“It is an insatiable contradiction that a political representative severely threatens a represented, as if he was above the citizen to the point of subjecting him with a firearm, at risk objective to lose his life,” he criticized.
Defense
The deputy’s defense spoke out about the trial in the Supreme Court. “Unfortunately, despite the defense of federal deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP), he claimed his legitimate right to effect oral defense, the claim was not even analyzed by the illustrious rapporteur of the process in the STF. That would be the best opportunity to highlight that the premises placed in the vote rendered are misguided. This lawyer’s right cannot be replaced by video sent-whose visualization of the judges. Curtailment of the defense were also sent and dispatched memorials with the ministers to motivate them to have seen and thoroughly examine the case, ”wrote Daniel Bialski, who represents Carla Zambelli.
