‎Brazil News

 

 

Unanimously, the 5th panel of the STJ maintained the holding of a virtual trial, rejecting the defense's claim that the analysis in a virtual environment, instead of in person, as requested by the party, would constitute a restriction of defense.

 

In this case, the defendant for drug trafficking alleged that telephone interceptions used as evidence had been carried out without a court order and without intervention from the Public Prosecutor's Office. He also questioned the lack of clarity regarding the exact period in which the interceptions were carried out. 

 

Understanding that such issues contained high technical complexity, the defense requested that the trial take place in person, allowing for more in-depth discussion and enabling the lawyers to intervene in the session.

 

The request, however, was denied unilaterally by the rapporteur, Minister Ribeiro, which led the defense to file a procedural appeal. 

 

The 5th panel of the STJ understood that the refusal to convert a trial from a virtual to a physical environment does not constitute a restriction of the right to a defense. 

When analyzing the request, the minister highlighted that the STJ's case law is clear in stating that there is no right in the Brazilian legal system to demand that a trial must take place in person. 

 

He emphasized that the fact that the trial is held virtually does not, in itself, constitute nullity or restriction of defense, especially when the party is guaranteed the right to oral argument, even in virtual form.

 

The case law of this court has established that there is no right in the current legal system to demand that the trial take place through an in-person session. Therefore, the fact that the trial was held virtually, even with the express and timely opposition of the party, is not, in itself, grounds for nullity or restriction of defense. Furthermore, even in cases where oral arguments are appropriate, if its exercise is guaranteed and made viable in the virtual trial modality, there will be no prejudice or nullity, even if the party opposes this form of trial, since the right to orally argue one's arguments does not necessarily mean doing so in person.

 

Furthermore, it was pointed out that, in this case, the defense had not requested oral arguments during the filing of the procedural appeal, but only when requesting the removal of the case from the virtual agenda, which was considered insufficient to justify the need for an in-person trial.

 

The STJ decision reiterated that, for a request for an in-person trial to be accepted, the party must clearly demonstrate the relevance of the matter under discussion and the need to attend the trial in person. As the defense was unable to prove such needs, the procedural appeal was dismissed, and the virtual trial was maintained.

 

Case : HC 832.679 

 

link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/414307/stj-negativa-de-julgamento-presencial-nao-gera-cerceamento-de-defesa