The First Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) will this Friday conclude its ruling on the appeal of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and six other defendants against their convictions for attempted coups. Once the trial is over, a new challenge period begins.
The four ministers on the first panel voted last Friday, the first day of the trial, to reject the clarification embargo (a type of appeal). However, the analysis will continue in a virtual plenary session until the end of this Friday. During this period, the judge may change his position or request the presence or highlighting of jurors.
The ministers also decided to reject the appeals of Walter Braga Netto, Anderson Torres, Augusto Heleno, former minister Paulo Sérgio Nogueira, former naval commander Almir Garnier Santos, and Federal Deputy Alexandre Ramajem (PL-RJ). Of the eight people convicted, Lt. Col. Mauro Cid did not appeal.
After the trial ends, results will be announced the next business day, Monday. A judgment will then be made public, formalizing the outcome of the trial. Because the analysis was done virtually with one vote, this publication could happen faster, within days.
After that, the deadline for the presentation of new resources begins. Your attorney may choose to file a new motion for clarification (a so-called “motion to motion”). In this case, the deadline is 5 days.
Another possibility is to apply for an embargo for infringing activities. You have 15 days to file this appeal. However, there are only 10 days left. This is because the count began with the publication of the first judgment mentioning a conviction and was interrupted after the first embargo was filed.
The two resources have different purposes. A motion for clarification helps clarify questions, inconsistencies, or omissions in the text.
With the trial ending this Friday, ministers on the First Committee already believe they cannot change the outcome of the trial that convicted Bolsonaro and his allies. However, the defense may try to argue that some of their questions were not addressed.
Although there are no clear limitations on motions for clarification, the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a new motion of this type cannot be granted if the two previous motions are deemed to be “merely delayed.”
Infringement embargoes serve to cast doubt on non-unanimous decisions. However, the STF’s current understanding is that this type of appeal can only be presented if there are two distinct votes in the class analysis. In the case of Bolsonaro and the majority of the defendants, there was only one vote in favor of acquittal, that of Minister Louis Fuchs. Therefore, attempts in this direction should not be successful.
About The Author
