The former president (PL) used excerpts from the minister’s vote to appeal this Monday (27) against his arrest ordered by the First Panel of the (Supreme Federal Court).
A says that the conviction, by majority vote, was imprecise and omitted on several points. Lawyers are trying, in this way, to reduce the sentence imposed on the former president.
Lawyers cite it six times in the appeal presented to the Supreme Court. In one of the quotes, Bolsonaro’s defense argues that only the minister detailed in his vote the defensive thesis that the former president voluntarily gave up on advancing the .
“The dissenting vote, therefore, confirms the dogmatic plausibility of the defensive thesis, reinforcing that, if execution had begun, the Plaintiff deliberately interrupted the course of events, characterizing voluntary withdrawal”, says the team led by lawyer Celso Vilardi.
“By not addressing these grounds, the ruling commits a relevant and qualified omission, violating the constitutional duty of motivation”, he adds.
The ex-president’s defense also quotes Fux as saying that the lawyers had, in the process, serious restriction of defense and accusatory excess.
“Minister Luiz Fux’s dissenting vote also reinforces this need for a rigorous dogmatic examination, recognizing the risk of accusatory excess and the importance of distinguishing the phases of iter criminis — a distinction that does not exist in the winning ruling”, he states.
In the appeal, Bolsonaro lists eight omissions or contradictions that, in the defense’s view, harmed the outcome of the trial.
These errors would be linked to the link between the coup plot and the acts of January 8, 2023, the restriction of defense, the lack of credibility in Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid’s plea bargain and the contradictions between the evidence of Bolsonaro’s participation in the crimes.
The former president’s defense says that the conviction and sentence imposed on Bolsonaro bring “profound injustices” and are based on “important contradictions and omissions between the premises adopted, the evidence listed in the ruling and the conclusions that were intended to be drawn from them”.
“As has always been highlighted by all parties and by this C. Panel, the facts alleged are serious and the present case is a historic criminal action. But the contradictions and omissions detailed here show, rather, the injustice of the Appellant’s conviction”, he concludes.
The defense is also trying to reduce the sentence imposed on Bolsonaro. She alleges that the crimes of coup d’état and abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, in the version presented by the PGR (Attorney General’s Office), would have the same objective: maintaining the former president in power.
“The accusatory narrative itself describes a single strategy: delegitimize the electoral process, mobilize supporters, involve state structures and, supposedly, try to maintain power through exceptional means. This entire context converges towards a single legal result — preventing democratic alternation”, he says.
Lawyers argue that, according to this criterion, the crime of coup d’état should absorb the crime of abolition of the rule of law, reducing the former president’s sentence by more than six years.
Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison. He was accused of leading a plot to remain in power, committing the crimes of coup d’état, abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, armed criminal organization, qualified damage to public property and deterioration of listed property.
The conviction keeps Bolsonaro ineligible for up to eight years after the end of his sentence — a period that should end in 2060.
The result of the trial was 4 votes to 1. Minister Luiz Fux, alone, said that Bolsonaro’s meetings with the heads of the Armed Forces and the statements attacking the polls constituted “mere irresignation with the electoral result”.
The appeals phase opened with the publication, on Wednesday (22), of the trial ruling — a document that makes the result of the First Panel official.
This Monday (27) the deadline for defenses to present motions for clarification, a type of appeal used when there is some obscurity, inaccuracy, contradiction or omission in the decision, ended.
This type of embargo does not change the outcome of the trial —conviction or acquittal—, but it can raise questions about the sentence and even reduce the size of the defendants’ sentences.
Those in favor of the defendant have a slightly longer period of 15 days – a period that can, in practice, be extended, given that the embargoes suspend the deadline until the merits are judged.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence defines that infringing embargoes are only allowed when there are two votes in favor of the defendant. Ministers heard by Sheet consider that this type of appeal should be rejected by the court, without analyzing its merits.
The sentence must only be served after the end of the process, with all appeals analyzed by the Supreme Court. The court expects this phase to end this year. Only with the end of the criminal action should the STF decide whether Bolsonaro will serve his sentence in a common prison, in a military unit or under home confinement.
