The trial that will decide whether the former president () becomes a defendant in the (Supreme Court) began on Tuesday (25) with the presentation of the arguments of his defenses and seven otherwise reported on charges of joining a coup plot to prevent the inauguration of the president ().
In addition to Bolsonaro, they are accused, former ABIN chief and federal deputy of PL-RJ, Almir Garnier, former Navy Commander, former Justice Minister Augusto Heleno, former chief of the Institutional Security Office, former president of the Presidency of the Republic, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira, former Minister of Defense, and former Minister of Civil House and Defense.
They are accused of attempted violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and coup d’état, as well as damage qualified by violence and serious threat against the union’s assets, the deterioration of listed assets and participation in a criminal organization. If convicted, they can take penalties from more than 40 years in prison.
In the first part of the session, the rapporteur, the minister, the Attorney General of the Republic, and the lawyers of the accused.
In the afternoon, the ministers of the first class responded to the allegations and requests of the lawyers, who cited points previously raised in their defenses, such as the impediment of ministers and the validity of Mauro Cid’s denunciation.
See some of the lawyers’ questions and what the ministers decided on the requests:
Impediment of magistrates
Defenses
The defenses of Anderson Torres, Augusto Heleno and Paulo Sérgio Nogueira called for the impediment of the Ministers Moraes, and due to the absence of impersonality. One of the allegations is that Moraes would be part of the process, since the PF investigation points out that he was the target of a murder plan. In Dino’s case, the defenses raise the fact that he has already filed a criminal action against Bolsonaro. About Zanin, he cite the fact that he has already declined before and signed a criminal news in case involving Bolsonaro before entering the Supreme.
Ministers
Moraes and Zanin recalled that in recent session the Supreme Court rejected the suspension or impediment of the ministers. The decision was given by a large majority, 9 to 1 votes, in the case of Moraes and Dino, and 10 to 0, in the case of Zanin. The vote overdue at the time had been André Mendonça. Dino spoke of “an attempt to transform courts in part of this polarization” seen in society. He recalled that the issue is decided by the President of the Court or the ministers themselves accused of bias, who did not declare themselves prevented. He said that one cannot try to create impediments in order to ward off the magistrates and that many of them, not only from the Supreme Court, were attacked by those involved in the coup plot.
STF, First Class and Judge of Guarantees
Defenses
The lawyers questioned whether it would be the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to judge the case and, ultimately, whether the issue should not be treated by all court ministers. Celso Vilardi, Bolsonaro’s lawyer, for example, argued that the competence would be from the plenary because the accused was president of the Republic at the time of the facts narrated. It also requested the application of the judge of guarantees (rule that establishes that the same judge should not conduct the inquiry and the process).
Ministers
Moraes argued that in almost 1,500 actions the Supreme Court has already reaffirmed its competence for all crimes related to January 8, 2023. He also said that the exception that brings the trial to the plenary is only fired when the accused still has the position of president. The other ministers accompanied the rapporteur and refused the defenses’ request, with the exception of. All ministers said that the concept of judge of guarantees does not apply to the case.
Defense curtailment
Defenses
Lawyers of accused claimed the curtailment of defense because they did not have full access to the evidence, which would harm their clients. They also cited “probative fishing” – when a diligence is authorized without justified fact to gather possible evidence – and “document dumping”, a practice of delivering a large volume of disorganized documents to make analysis difficult. The defense of Augusto Heleno also criticized OE spoke at risk to broad defense and contradictory.
Ministers
Flávio Dino said he did not identify in the process any reason for nullity. Like Moraes, he said that if the criminal action is instituted, the defenses will have access to more evidence and denied that there was probative fishing. Fux and Zanin said slicing is provided for in the legislation and has been done in other processes. Carmen Lúcia accompanied the rapporteur noting that the quality of the defenses’ presentation is an indicative that they had adequate access to the tests.
Awarded collaboration
Defenses
The defenses of former President Bolsonaro and former Minister Braga Netto called for the cancellation of the Mauro Cid agreement with the Federal Police saying that there were some vices in him, such as non-consent of the Attorney General’s Office and lack of voluntarity. They also cited the lack of reliability in the military’s speech, who would have omitted information in some of his testimonials.
Ministers
Moraes argued that the Supreme Court acted according to his role of “verifying the regularity, voluntarity and legality” of collaboration. “At no time does this Federal Supreme Court, through the Minister-Rapporteur, interfered with the content or in the terms of the award-winning collaboration agreement, having worked only what the law guarantees to every judge,” he said. The was taken unanimously, but Fux indicated to see with reservations the performance of the employee.
