The defense of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) filed this Friday with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) a request for criminal review against the conviction in the case of the coup acts and requested that the action be analyzed by ministers of the Second Panel of the Court.
Criminal review is considered an exceptional measure and rarely results in the overturning of convictions. The instrument seeks to re-examine the conviction when there is no longer any chance of appeal and it is possible when a convicted person presents new evidence of a fact and reopens the case in court.
In the request, the lawyers maintain that there was a “judicial error” and point out a series of nullities in the processing of the criminal action, judged by the First Panel. Criminal review is an instrument designed to question final decisions when there are illegalities or contradictions with the evidence in the case.
Continues after advertising
The defense claims that, according to the internal rules of the STF, the review of decisions of a Panel must be distributed among ministers of the opposing Panel, without the participation of the magistrates who worked in the original trial — which, in this case, would take the process to the Second Panel.
The Second Panel is made up of ministers Gilmar Mendes, current president, Dias Toffoli, Nunes Marques, André Mendonça and Luiz Fux. Nunes Marques and Mendonça are the only two STF ministers nominated by Bolsonaro as president, and may be drawn as rapporteurs for the request.
Among the points raised are the alleged incompetence of the First Panel to judge the case, irregularities in the production of evidence and allegations of restriction of defense.
Lawyers also criticize the decision to become final, when there are no more appeals, stating that it would have occurred prematurely, which would have prevented the analysis of internal appeals provided for in the Court’s rules.
Behind the scenes at the Court, the chances of a criminal review being successful are considered low — especially considering the sensitivity of the topic. Authorizing the criminal review would be recognizing an “error” on the part of the judgment made by the Supreme Court.
