The first panel of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on Friday finishes ruling on the appeals of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and six other defendants against his conviction for the attempted coup. The end of the trial begins a period for submitting new objections.
The four First Committee ministers voted last Friday, the first day of the trial, to reject the ban to clarify the type of appeal used. However, analysis continues in the virtual plenary until the end of Friday. During this period, judges could change their position, request visibility or the spotlight.
The ministers also decided to reject the appeals of former ministers Walter Braga Neto, Anderson Torres, Augusto Heleno, Paulo Sergio Nogueira, former naval commander Almir Garnier Santos, and federal MP Alexandre Ramagem (PL-RJ). Of the eight convicts, Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid did not appeal the sentence.
After the experiment ends, the result will be announced on Monday, the next working day. The judgment, which is a document that makes the outcome of the trial official, will then be published. Since the analysis is done virtually, with just one voice, this deployment is faster and can happen within a few days.
From then on, the deadline for submitting new resources begins. Attorneys may choose to file new motions for clarification (so-called “motions on motions”). In this case, the deadline is five days.
Another possibility is to lift the violation ban. The deadline for this appeal is 15 days. However, there are now 10 days left. This is because the count began with the publication of the first conviction ruling, and was interrupted after the first ban was lifted.
The two resources have different purposes. Clarification suggestions serve to clarify doubts, inconsistencies, or omissions in a sentence.
In the trial that ends on Friday, the First Committee ministers have already considered that nothing can be changed in the outcome of the trial that convicted Bolsonaro and his allies. However, defenders may try to insist that some of their questions have not been addressed.
There is no set limit for requests for clarification, but the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that new appeals of this type will not be accepted when the previous two appeals are considered “mere delay.”
Dissenting bans call into question non-unanimous rulings. However, the current understanding of the STF is that this type of appeal can only be made when there are two disparate voices, in the analyzes conducted by the classes. In the case of Bolsonaro and the majority of those accused, there was only one vote in favor of acquittal, that of Minister Luiz Fox. Therefore, any attempt in this direction should not succeed.
About The Author
