MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 15th 2018 - 17:26 UTC

Lula's defense hopes for an early retrieve if Supreme Court changes a key law

Monday, April 9th 2018 - 08:42 UTC
Full article 51 comments
Justice Marco Aurelio Mello said he would petition the Supreme Federal Tribunal next Wednesday to revisit the current law on incarceration during appeals. Justice Marco Aurelio Mello said he would petition the Supreme Federal Tribunal next Wednesday to revisit the current law on incarceration during appeals.
As things stand, anyone losing a first and second appeal, as in Lula's case last week, must conduct any further appeal from prison. As things stand, anyone losing a first and second appeal, as in Lula's case last week, must conduct any further appeal from prison.
There are signs that the majority is shifting among the STF's 11 justices in favor of changing the interpretation of when defendants need to start serving sentences. There are signs that the majority is shifting among the STF's 11 justices in favor of changing the interpretation of when defendants need to start serving sentences.
One of the judges who voted against Lula, Rosa Weber, has implied that she is favorable to a change in the current case law, although not when on a specific case. One of the judges who voted against Lula, Rosa Weber, has implied that she is favorable to a change in the current case law, although not when on a specific case.

Brazil's ex-president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who began a 12-year jail sentence on Saturday in Curitiba, could win an early reprieve if the country's top court decides to change a key law. Marco Aurelio Mello, a judge at the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF), said he would petition the divided court next Wednesday to revisit the current law on incarceration during appeals.

 As things stand, anyone losing a first appeal, as in Lula's case last week, must conduct any further appeal from prison.

But the judges adopted that decision by the narrowest of margins, a 6-5 vote, and there are signs that the majority is shifting among the 11 justices in favor of changing the court's interpretation of when defendants need to start serving their sentences.

One of the judges who voted against Lula, Rosa Weber, has implied that she is favorable to a change in the current case law, although not when judging a specific case.

A change would allow Lula to pursue a second appeal he is preparing, to the Superior Court of Justice, while a free man.

Some judges in the divided court advocate early imprisonment in the appeals process as part of the fight against impunity, because trials can take years to go through the appeals process. Other judges want the rule changed to respect the presumption of innocence.

”There is a conflict within the STF, between those who want to discuss the matter in general and those who oppose it, and the only reason why the matter is relevant is because of (the uncertainty) about Rosa Weber's vote,” Thomaz Pereira, professor of law at Rio's Getulio Vargas Foundation.

If the law is changed, all those detained, including Lula, would be released to continue to fight their appeals while free -- unless they represent a flight risk or could intimidate witnesses. Analysts have not ruled out that some judges may call for discussion on the change to be suspended indefinitely to allow more time to study the issue.

Categories: Politics, Brazil.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • :o))

    @DT

    REF: In November perhaps?

    OR well before!

    $$$+POWER is a deadly combination. PRACTICALLY; anything & everything is possible for anyone/whoever has both - if he/she/it/they put their minds to it.

    Apr 10th, 2018 - 12:02 am +2
  • :o))

    @DT:

    - Once a politician; ALWAYS a politician
    - If not directly; indirectly, the laws can/will change in their favor.
    - If not directly, indirectly; their stooges will be in power
    - The buying/selling of votes can show who the winner is.

    Apr 10th, 2018 - 12:01 pm +2
  • :o))

    @Conqueror:

    REF: DEMOCRACY [“I was under the impression that it is supposed to be a democratic country”]:

    Please give this a thought: In ANY country where/when:

    - The elections are funded by the “donations” [in billions]
    - The opinions are adulterated by the media [social, etc.]
    - The votes are negotiated by the candidates
    - electing a leader is EASY but kicking him/her out [for whatever reason/s] is practically IMPOSSIBLE.
    - A constitution & the laws are intentionally misinterpreted for the frequent benefit of the crooked
    REF:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sb-_bGzgVxA/VCbu4UDvNlI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/dQXfyiwGjQM/s1600/democracia5.jpg
    DEMOCRACY JUST DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE! So why should Brazil be DIFFERENT?

    Apr 09th, 2018 - 11:47 am +1
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!