RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Recent Federal Supreme Court (STF) decisions have prompted presecutors to review the lawsuit. On Wednesday, October 23rd, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) called for the annulment of the sentence against former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva regarding the ranch in Atibaia in São Paulo State.
Regional prosecutor Maurício Gerun claimed that the recent STF judgments overturning Lava Jato convictions are precedents that should be applied to Lula’s case, remanding the case back to the final briefs stage at the lower court trial.
Final briefs are the last stage of a proceeding before the court issues a sentence. It is the last opportunity for the defendants to state their arguments.
Supreme Court justices have overturned two Lava Jato convictions, based on a new interpretation of a criminal procedural rule. According to the court majority, in a case having both accused whistleblowers and other defendants, the collaborators must speak first, followed by their co-defendants, so that the latter may be able to argue their case against all charges.
According to prosecutor Gerun, the decisions should act as precedents, the coherence of the legal system must be preserved and future annulment appeals, which could lead to injustices, must be avoided–hence the motion to send the case back to the lower court.
The 4th Federal Appellate Court (TRF-4) will esamine whether Lula’s case should be referred back to the lower court, so as to to correct the order in which the final briefs were submitted, at a hearing on Wednesday, October 30th.
The decision to hear the case was taken this Wednesday by the rapporteur of Lava Jato cases in TRF-4, Judge João Pedro Gebran Neto. Gebran considered that before judging the merits of the former president’s case at the appellate level, which is expected during the coming months, the court should determine whether or not the STF’s recent decisions should apply to Lula’s case.
In their motion, the MPF prosecutor describes the STF judgment and points out that, in the Atibaia site lawsuit, there are collaborators who are defendants, and who submitted their final briefs at the same time as the defendants they had denounced, and that Lula’s defense counsel had objected to this order at the lower court stage of trial.
“There is no substantial difference between the proceeding observed in this [Lula’s] case regarding the order of presentation of the final briefs and that which the STF found to be violating the Constitution in two recent precedents,” says Gerun.
However, the reporters found that Lula’s defense will seek to suspend the examination of the case. The lawyers’ assessment is that it should be up to the court to analyze all issues raised by the former president, and not only the final briefs issue. The core purpose of the defense is the annulment of the entire case.
This is the second demonstration by the MPF that could change the course of life for the former president. In the first, involving his imprisonment, Lava Jato prosecutors in Curitiba petitioned for him to begin to serve time in the work-release regime since he fulfills the requirements for progression to a less harsh form of punishment.
However, Lula said he will not bargain for his freedom and urged the courts the right to refuse the benefit.
In the Atibaia site lawsuit, the former president was convicted by the Curitiba Federal Court to 12 years and 11 months imprisonment for corruption and money laundering.
He has been in prison since April last year, after having had his conviction confirmed at the appellate level in another case — the Guarujá Triplex.
On Wednesday, October 23rd, the STF resumed the judgment that will decide if a convicted defendant can be ordered to prison after the conviction is affirmed by one appellate court, or whether prison can only occur after a final and unappealable decision is rendered.
The outcome in the Supreme Court may also affect Lula’s other case – the TRF-4 appellate decision in the Guarujá triplex has also been ratified by the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), the so-called third instance of the judiciary.
Source: Folhapress