The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), gave and provides for the beginning of the judgment of the former president (PL) 144 days after the opening of the criminal action.
The speed contrasts with the cadence imposed by Moraes in the case against the, accused of omitting intentionally to allow.
The PMs have been defendants for over 500 days, and the process has been ready for trial since May 2 this year. Even so, a shot of the criminal action on the agenda of the first class of the Supreme Court caused the outcome of the case to be without expected date.
Moraes asked after the end of the final allegations that the minister, president of the board, guided the trial against Bolsonaro and seven others accused of joining the central core of the coup plot.
The next day,: It marked the date of September 2 for the beginning of the trial, with two weeks of sessions. The result should be known on the 12th.
In the case of PMs, the final allegations were presented over 100 days ago. Moraes placed the trial on the agenda of the Virtual Plenary of the Supreme Court twice, but gave up presenting the vote on both occasions, always on the eve of the outcome of the case.
The first time, Moraes scheduled the trial to June 13. Two days before the opening of the virtual plenary, the minister requested the withdrawal of the agenda, without justifying.
More recently, it included the case of online trial PMs in a session that would start on August 8. He withdrew the case of the agenda on the 6th and replaced him to analyze the first class hours later.
The definitive decision of cancellation was on August 7 – the judgment of the judgment, after the oral support of all lawyers had already been included in the Supreme System.
Processes against PMs and Bolsonaro have differences that influenced the rhythm of processing. One of the main is the fact that the central core of the coup plot, in which the former president was included, has a defendant arrested: General and former Minister Walter Braga Netto, detained since December 2024.
The Code of Criminal Procedure states that cases with arrested defendants do not have the deadlines interrupted during the recess of the judiciary. This ensured that even on July vacation, the defenses had to run to prepare the final allegations.
The lawsuit against the PMs began with the seven defendants arrested. But gradually they were placed in freedom until the last one left the prison in May 2024.
With this, the PGR had more time to submit the final allegations, as the deadline came in December of that year, on the eve of the recess. Instead of 15 days, the prosecution had 73 days to present its final version. The same period was later given to the defendants’ defenses.
One factor that detached the swimming in the case of the coup plot was the fact that there was a whistleblower, Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid. The legislation provides that employees should speak before the other defendants, which makes the defenses have an extra deadline to speak up.
A Sheet He asked to demonstrate the Moraes Office, but got no response. (14), he denied that he accelerated the lawsuit against Bolsonaro.
The comment was made in response to a humorist who asked why the coup plot process is in the final phase while the investigation into the INSS fraud is far from his outcome.
“Between investigation, complaint and the process [sobre a tentativa de golpe de Estado]we will turn almost two years. The INSS issue is not six months old, and people put in misinformation that is the same time. Comparing diverse things is very complicated, “he said.
A Sheet Heard ministers of the Supreme, assistants and cases linked to cases in recent days. The evaluation around Moraes is that the PM judgment should only occur after the start of the coup plot’s analysis.
Successive postponements in the Military Police lawsuit circulated between lawyers theories about the reasons that led the minister to make the decision.
Defendants’ defenses argue that PGR has come to contradictory conclusions in the PMs and coup plot proceedings-in this, one of the defendants is Anderson Torres, a former department of the Federal District Public Security Secretariat (SSP-DF).
Attorney General Paulo Gonet says he was silent in organizing the Ministries Esplanade Safety Scheme on January 8. One of the tests, according to PGR, would be the non -dissemination of an intelligence report that warned of the possible breakup.
“Report No. 6/2023 has not been disclosed to other bodies, in view of the extremely restricted diffusion within the SSP/DF, contrary to fundamental principles of intelligence activity, which provide for the wide dissemination of information, to ensure coordination and effectiveness in preventing public order threats,” says PGR, in final allegations, about Anderson Torres.
Already in the final allegations of the case against the PMs, Gonet says that the Military Police summit had access to intelligence information that provided for acts of violence – that, by intentional omission, security planning was not followed.
“In addition to the previously cited data, intelligence reports, whose content came to the knowledge of the accused, indicated that ‘cacs’ were being summoned to ‘Sitiar Brasilia’, specifically on 8.1.2023, and that there was a mobilization for the presence of ‘adults in good physical condition’,” says Gonet before specifically citing the report produced by the secretary.
The PGR supports against the PMs the thesis that there was no one, as it was defended by the police during the investigations. According to the Attorney’s Office, the defendants were “with sufficient information so that the PM-DF could successfully fulfill the duty to interrupt the causal course that headed for criminal acts.”
“[Os acusados] They promoted inefficient planning, deliberately ignoring the information that there would be invasion of public buildings and violent clashes, including individuals willing to death, “concludes PGR.
The alleged contradiction was explored by the defense of Torres in the final allegations of the coup plot presented to the Supreme on Wednesday (13).
“The contradiction is therefore unsurpassed. If the PM-DF knew the risks and omitted maliciously, as PGR maintains in criminal action against its commanders, then it is absolutely irrational, and even incompatible with the most basic principles of criminal law attribute the duty to have prevented these alleged autonomous, intentional and clandestine conduct,” Novacki.
