The defenses of the defendants in the coup plot to attack and promote attacks against the leaders of the companies denied to the (Supreme Federal Court) their participation in a criminal organization and said that they did not know the other defendants.
The First Panel of the STF heard this Tuesday (14) the oral arguments of the Attorney General of the Republic, , and the lawyers of the seven defendants in the group.
The session scheduled for Wednesday (15) was canceled by the class president, , and the analysis of the criminal action will be resumed next Tuesday (21), with the vote of the rapporteur, .
The Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, accused of spreading disinformation about electronic voting machines and promoting attacks against the heads of the Armed Forces opposed to the 2022 coup plot.
On the stand, the lawyers denied any connection between their representatives and the acts of January 8, 2023 and said there was no proof of this link.
They also argued that the dissemination of misinformation or attacks on authorities had not been proven and that any sending of a link in private conversations could not be included in the crimes in question.
The core members are (major expelled from the Army), (major from the Army reserve), (Army sergeant), (Army lieutenant colonel), (Army colonel), (federal police officer) and (president of the Instituto Voto Legal).
Giancarlo’s lawyer, Juliana Malafaia said that he does not know the other defendants, with the exception of Bormevet, who was his boss at Abin (Brazilian Intelligence Agency). Therefore, it would not be possible to characterize his participation in a division of group tasks.
“[O ex-diretor da Abin Alexandre] Ramagem doesn’t know Giancarlo. doesn’t know him. The only two prosecution witnesses in this group do not know him. The defendants in the other groups don’t know him. Furthermore, it’s worth remembering, Giancarlo didn’t know him. Giancarlo has demonstrably not associated with anyone,” he said.
For the PGR, the importance of the accused’s participation was mainly due to the misuse of the FirstMille tool.
Malafaia states, however, that the defendant did not use the software during the period of the complaint and that the accusation itself admits the shared use of program passwords. “In fact, the accused only carried out tasks that were not manifestly illegal for his superiors.”
Guilherme Marques de Almeida’s lawyer, Leonardo Avelar stated that “the unanimous testimonial evidence from co-defendants and the award-winning collaborator confirms that Guilherme was a complete stranger to the acts and people”.
According to him, the lieutenant colonel’s period of action would have been between November 2 and 6, 2022, which would be a one-off act.
“In the records, besides the contact of Mauro Cid, his contemporary at the academy, no other contacts were brought. Due to the fact that they did not know each other. If Guilherme belonged to a criminal organization, where is the proof of the link with the other members? The law requires a link.”
Lawyer Zoser Hardman, for Ângelo Denicoli’s defense, said that the lack of evidence should result in the major’s acquittal.
“Jurisprudence, doctrine and law allow the imputations of this specific crime [organização criminosa] be flexible. You say that he would be responsible for producing disinformation: it is generic, the Prosecutor’s Office does not say what disinformation and what document he produced, but it is admissible under jurisprudence and doctrine. In relation to the other factual imputations, there is no such delimitation of conduct”, he said.
By Marcelo Bormevet, lawyer Hassan Souki stated that distrust in relation to the polls is not enough for conviction. “Is it reprehensible conduct? I won’t deny it. But it is not enough for criminal liability that could result in the deprivation of liberty, a fundamental right, for a long period,” he said.
Souki also questioned the characterization of a criminal organization. “We have in the complaint a so-called disinformation group, which is a curious and heterogeneous group of people. There is no clarification of how the members of this group related to each other. In fact, there is no proof that they even knew each other,” said the lawyer.
Reginaldo’s defense stated that the accusation against him is based on imputations such as fragments of private messages extracted from third-party devices, such as General Mário Fernandes.
“At no time was the defendant the target of any precautionary measure. These are not insignificant messages. They were unfortunate messages. However, they cannot, by themselves, outside of a context, configure or lead to a conviction”, he said.
Ailton Barros’ defense said that the accusation of spreading attacks against the heads of the Armed Forces makes no sense. He denied that the soldier expelled from the Army had spread attacks against general officers in addition to messages sent to former minister Walter Braga Netto.
Lawyer Melillo Nascimento, defender of Carlos Rocha, said that the work of Instituto Voto Legal was carried out in accordance with the contract signed with the Liberal Party, which provided for a “constructive partnership” with the Electoral Court.
He says that Rocha has no relation to the political decision to try to reverse the election results. “The president of the PL, Valdemar Costa Neto, was not denounced”, he recalled.
