The appeal, titled "testifying letter," was analyzed by three judges: Luis Soares de Mello, Euvaldo Chaib, and Salles Abreu. The analysis of the appeal began around 10:40 AM and lasted about an hour, at the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice.
In his presentation, Podval stated that his clients had been deprived of a legal right, and that removing this guarantee of a new trial, provided for by law when the crime occurred, seemed misguided to him.
According to prosecutor Sandra Jardim, the right to a new trial was already misguided when the law was still in effect. She argued that the right to a new trial stemmed from a time when people's life expectancy was much lower, and therefore convictions of over 20 years were reviewed. Currently, this would be "unconstitutional, a favor."
The rapporteur of the case, Judge Luis Soares de Mello, stated in his speech that, according to jurists, appeals should respect the law in force at the time of the trial, when the sentence was handed down, not when the crime occurred. In this case, the defendants "do not have the right to be judged by the law from when the trial took place." He also stated that the absence of a new jury does not conflict with the defendants' full defense. (G1, 09/21/2010 11:57 AM)
i. Testifying letter - A criminal law appeal, applicable against a decision that denies the appeal or, although admitting it, obstructs its issuance and progression to the superior court. The letter must be requested from the clerk within 48 hours of the order denying the appeal. See articles 639 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. <direitonet.com.br>
ii. Testifying letter - In Criminal Procedure Law, it is a judicial procedure whose purpose is to make denied appeals effective, or their respective progression, when admitted, if their presentation to the superior instance is obstructed. <saberjuridico.com.br>
