Brazil wants to undermine plea bargaining

Another one of those strange episodes is underway in which people from the right and the left end up walking hand in hand in Brazil. This time, the objective is to discredit the institute of plea bargaining.

This Friday, the 3rd, minister Alexandre de Moraes decided to keep valid the statement signed by lieutenant colonel Mauro Cid in September of last year.

The risk of cancellation emerged at the end of March, when leaks to the magazine Look excerpts from a conversation between the soldier and a character who, to this day, is unknown.

The audios suggested that Cid was coerced by police officers investigating the coup machinations and other possible crimes of former president Jair Bolsonaro.

Cid explains himself

Sent to jail, Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp had to explain himself.

He guaranteed that he signed the plea bargain agreement of his own free will.

He also said that he was not obliged to report something that did not happen, but reiterated the opinion that the investigators already had a hypothesis formed when they questioned him.

Moraes ordered his release and ratified the terms of collaboration.

The coercion thesis

From a legal point of view, everything remains as it was.

From a political point of view, the idea that Cid was forced to incriminate his former boss did not recede among Bolsonarists. Just look at social media.

On the left, the campaign against award-winning collaborations and leniency (used for legal entities) has been ongoing for a long time.

In the battle of the moment, parties such as PT, Psol and PCdoB work with lawyers who claim to be progressive to destroy the leniency agreements signed by corrupt companies during Lava Jato.

The thesis, once again, is that there was coercion.

Denunciation is not a party

It is necessary to reject these speeches, otherwise we risk losing one of the few effective instruments in Brazil for combating organized crime and the schemes of political groups in which some characters rule and others obey.

Authorities and criminals are not friends arranging a party when they sit down to negotiate a collaboration agreement.

On one side of the table there are investigators who already have evidence that some fraud occurred; on the other, there are people willing to inform on cronies in exchange not for a gift, but for some relief from punishment.

The potential collaborator must be advised by lawyers to ensure that the agreement was not made under duress. This is fundamental. Lawyers can report undue pressure. They must also ensure that their client accurately understands the terms and consequences of the agreement before signing the paperwork.

Pressure is part of the game

After the audios were leaked, the STF asked Cid if he confirmed that his agreement had been reached voluntarily. This was the response, according to the report: “Yes, confirm and reaffirm; the will remains the same. Spontaneously and voluntarily. Aware that collaboration would be made. He states that there was no pressure from the judiciary or the police. He spoke in advance with the lawyers about collaboration.”

When the large companies caught in Lava Jato signed their leniency agreements, they were all represented by teams of lawyers and executives, highly paid and equipped with laws and calculators. If these experts had concluded that it was more beneficial for the companies to let the process run rather than sign the leniency, they would have done so. It borders on bad faith to maintain otherwise.

It should also be remembered that signing a collaboration agreement is just a first step. The testimonies will come next and it is not possible to expect the police or prosecutors to accept the whistleblower’s version passively. They can and should question you, confront you, and even pressure you.

This is what happened in Mauro Cid’s plea. According to him, the police officers had an investigative thesis, which often did not coincide with their version of the facts. It’s not a problem. There would have been a scandal if the investigators had fabricated their statements. But the lieutenant colonel denies this situation. What they cannot do is forge false statements. “No member of the federal police coerced him into saying something that would not have happened”says his new statement.

Brazil and the United States

In the United States, 98% of criminal cases are currently resolved through plea bargainsthe negotiations between prosecutors and defendants that served as a model for award-winning collaborations in Brazil.

When investigating this number, the Americans came to the conclusion that the system needs to be revised. Although the gains in efficiency in the administration of the courts and in the reduction of sentences and incarceration are undeniable, it was concluded that the almost universalization of the practice ends up generating injustices, such as a large number of innocent people who plead guilty because that is the way to go. available to avoid a long process.

It is not possible to compare the Brazilian situation with that of the United States. Here, award-winning collaboration occurs in a tiny proportion of cases. It does not apply to any crime, but only to the most complex ones, which would have a great chance of going unpunished without the evidence that a plea bargain can bring.

Sharks and progressives

“Progressive” lawyers hate Brazilian plea bargains because they prevent processes from lasting for millennia, which is always a good deal for a criminal lawyer paid at a high price.

Politicians hate whistleblowing because it encourages lowlifes to reveal dirty sharks.

No one needs to love betrayals. It is enough to recognize that they take the law to places that would otherwise remain inaccessible in Brazil.