Contradiction between the answers and the sovereignty of the jury

Abstract

The opinion examines the regularity of a criminal proceeding submitted to the Jury Court, in which defects in the complementary expert examination and contradiction between the answers to the questions are pointed out. It analyzes the appointment of the reporting expert by nominal indication of the Assistant to the Public Prosecutor's Office, in violation of art. 276 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the nullity of the report prepared by a single expert, in view of Precedent 361 of the Brazilian Supreme Court, and the partial recording of the clarifications in Plenary. It argues that the Jury recognized that the defendant acted in self-defense, against a current aggression, and then stated that the crime was committed for a futile motive, constituting manifest incongruity. It concludes that the trial is null, under the sole paragraph of art. 564 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring a new trial that respects the sovereignty of the Jury.