Defense of the senator presented ‘Declaration embargo’, a modality of appeal that serves to clarify or question details of the decision
The first class of the Federal Supreme Court () formed a majority on Saturday (4) to keep the Defendant Senator (Union) for implying that the minister would sell court decisions. The ministers (rapporteur), and voted against a resource of the senator.
Moro was trying to reverse the decision of the First Class itself, June 2024, which received the complaint of the Attorney General’s Office () against him. The PGR calls for the conviction of the former judge for slander.
Judgment occurs in the Virtual Plenary of the Supreme Court. In this mode, ministers record votes on an online platform, without real -time debate about the process. The votes of e.
The Senator’s defense presented “Declaration Embargo” – Appeal Modality that serves to clarify or question details of the decision, but not to reverse the merit.
The ministers rejected the appeal based on procedural arguments. To Cármen Lúcia, rapporteur of the process, “the claim of the embargo is to rediscuss matter.”
“There is no omission in the embargoed decision. The chosen appeal is not led to the renewal of judgment that was regularly made,” the minister justified in her vote.
“The examination of the appeal petition is sufficient to see that it is not intended to provoke the clarification of an obscure, omitted or contradictory point or correct material error, but only modify the content of the judgment, to prevail the thesis of the embargo,” added Cármen Lúcia.
The process was opened based on a video that reverberated on social networks in April 2023. In the recording, Sergio Moro states: “No, this is bail, institute … To buy a habeas corpus from Gilmar Mendes.”
The senator apologized for the statement. The defense states that it was an “unfortunate joke” and that it was not Moro who edited and spread the video on the networks. The video was recorded when he was not yet a senator, but the ministers decided that, as the recording came public during the term of office, the STF has the competence to judge the case.
Receipt of the complaint triggers the criminal proceedings. There is no expected date for the judgment of the merit.
*With information from Estadão Content
Posted by Nátaly Tenório
