Lawyer of, Matheus Milanez evaluates that the conduct of the case related to the scammer’s plot by the minister in the (Federal Supreme Court) may impact the performance of magistrates of lower instances, empowering “bad judges”.
In an interview with Sheethe argues that the rapporteur cannot have protagonism during the instruction of the process. “The problem of high -ranking decisions that hurt fundamental rights is not the good judge. This will remain good. The problem is the bad judge,” he says.
Milanez debuted at the Court as the main lawyer of a case in defending the former head of the (institutional security office) of management. Although he had already acted in other noisy operations, he says that the volume of evidence and the speed of the criminal action was surprised.
The volume of material added at a short time of analysis generated, in its evaluation, the curtailment of the right of defense. In addition, he believes he has proved Heleno’s innocence and, therefore, that appeals have the potential to annul the conviction of 21 years imposed on the client.
The lawyer also criticized the (Attorney General’s Office) for not producing new evidence throughout the process and the Ministers of the Court, for not answering the questions of the defenses.
Many of the defenses complained about the ministers’ lack of answer to the questions raised by them. Did this happen in the case of Heleno? Yes, especially about the accusatory and the inquisitive system. It’s not that he [Alexandre de Moraes] I couldn’t ask questions, but you can’t have the protagonism. It starts with excess of questions, it goes into the fact that he actively investigates witnesses, culminates in asking for the consignment of questions in the minutes [da audiência]. The judge can participate in the probative instruction, ask questions. Complementary. Academically, there are lines that argue that the judge asks would be irregular. If he asks, he is taking over one side. When in doubt, it is favorable to the defendant.
In the case of Heleno, who made a partial use of the right to silence, would the minister not have to punctuate the questions he would ask? Silence cannot be used to harm against it. Some understand that consigning the questions is a continuation of interrogation, and there would be even in a possible crime of the Authority Abuse Law. But what we see is that it violates the right to silence.
How will this be seen by TRF, TJ, First Judge? The problem of high -ranking decisions that hurt fundamental rights is not the good judge. This one will remain good. The problem is the bad judge. He will see this decision and think, “So I can check it out? I will ask more.” The judge’s role is not this. He does not participate in the game. Equal to the football referee.
It is possible to anticipate what will be the points raised in the resources in the case of Heleno? This nullity, which was not approached right. Still, it is not human to say that the contradictory was guaranteed for that vastness of material in such a short time. The main point is about the tests that supposedly involve heleno. We managed to deconstruct that booklet, with the leaves separately. The question of parallel Abin. At no time was this discussed. How did he organize an abin parallel if he was investigated in this own body?
What do you expect with the embargoes? RPenalty EDUCATION? No, annulment. They can modify the understanding of preliminaries. The probability is low, but not impossible. If you don’t believe in that 1%, hangs the gown.
EA few moments, the ministers resume the general’s prestige within the Armed Forces, Bolsonaro’s admiration for him. This was used against he? This argument, in fact, favors me. If so, why was his role to talk about the polls? In addition, he had no politicization at GSI, he kept people from other governments. And if the big hindrance to the blow was Freire Gomes, he was Heleno’s cadet at the gym. There would be no one better to say, “Come on, all together to Brazil.” It does not even fit the reality of the Public Prosecution Service.
Heleno has always been very hard. Did the construction of this public figure influence the judgment? The large guiding was his proximity to the president and the fact that he was a very strong electoral cable. They tried to remove our argument from his departure from the president in the second part of the term.
Mr. He said that the prosecution did not add evidence. This in relation to the defenses previews? No, since the complaint, because the process follows to produce proof. The idea of instruction is to produce proof to confirm the accusation. In the complaint, the standard [padrão] Of the test is low, it has to have indications. To condemn it is much higher, but had no proof production. The complaint has already generated a condemnatory judgment, not only of receipt, but it had to be.
Regarding his work in the trial, it was already a rumored case from the beginning, a hardline driving was expected. Did something surprise you? The speed was impressive. And I already worked with a process where all seized material had 2 terabytes [de arquivos digitais]. But 70 Terabytes is a lot. Where do you start? How do you filter?
Cristiano Zanin said he himself worked with such a volume, without link, in the PF room. It was not all that. I am sure. President Lula was not framed at all times of Lava Jato.
Moraes replied that she released access to the request of the defenses and none presented anything relevant after that. It’s not true. We used the agenda, other documents. And how am I going to present what I didn’t see? This is the point. You even try to analyze, but if you only looked 5 Terabytes, how to present something beyond? Are you seeing the total volume of tests?
X-ray
Matheus Milanez, 33
Criminal lawyer, teacher and master’s degree in law at UnB
