‎Brazil News

 

Lawyer and judge argue after lack of warning about right to silence

Lawyer asked for the word "in order", and received a refusal from the judge.

From the Editor

 

Wednesday, May 22, 2024

 

Updated at 10:56

 

 

Lawyer and judge had a heated argument at a custody hearing. The lawyer warned that the judge would have asked questions without the mandatory information about the right to silence, provided for in the Constitution. The discussion took place between lawyer Arruda and judge Daniel  and was published by the lawyer himself on TikTok.

 

Several times, the lawyer asks for the word "in order", but is refused by the judge. The judge then allows the lawyer to record the questioning in the minutes.

 

"The defense of those in custody requests that it be recorded in the minutes that the judge presiding over the custody hearing began asking the accused about the facts, without however warning them of their legal right to remain silent. (...) We also protest the fact that the judge does not accept the expression 'by order', which allows the lawyer to protest about the judge's procedure or any other irregularity he sees at the hearing."

 

sees violation of the right to silence and orders a new trial

 

After registration, the judge starts asking questions again without warning of the right to silence.

 

The prosecutor comes to the judge's defense, stating that he is not asking about the facts, but only about the capture of those in custody.

 

But the lawyer remains indignant: " you didn't make the laws. There is no CPP in Bastos, there is in Brazil and you don't want to give warnings that are now being requested even from military police officers. "

 

 

 

Reminder: Comments do not represent  opinion; The responsibility lies with the author of the message.

 

Leave your comment

 

 

TO ENTER

RELATED CONTENT

 

STJ

 sees violation of the right to silence and orders a new trial

Your Excellency. considered jurisprudence from the 5th class of the STJ in similar cases.

 

Minister  , from the STJ, on a preliminary basis, recognized a violation of the right to silence of the accused who refused to answer questions other than those from his own defense during  the first-degree hearing. In the decision, Your Excellency. considered that the Constitution itself guarantees the prerogative to the defendant.

 

In summary, a man accused in the criminal sphere claims to have suffered illegal coercion by the first degree court. According to him, the magistrate who led the process, at the pre-trial and trial hearing, violated his right to silence by closing the hearing due to his refusal to answer questions other than those from his own defense.

 

 link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/395078/schietti-ve-violacao-do-direito-ao-silencio-e-ordena-novo-julgamento