Cid’s audios weaken evidence against Bolsonaro and would deserve investigation

Cid’s audios weaken evidence against Bolsonaro and would deserve investigation


The audios in which lieutenant colonel Mauro Cid pointed out a possible inducement of his collaboration in the investigations against former president Jair Bolsonaro could be used by the defense of those being investigated to annul evidence and would deserve a more in-depth investigation by the Federal Public Ministry , about the conduct of the Federal Police in the case. This is the view of criminal experts consulted by the report to understand possible consequences of the speeches of Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp, revealed by the magazine Look last week.

Referring to PF delegates who took their statements, Mauro Cid said, in the audios, that “they wanted me to say something that I don’t know, that didn’t happen” and that “they already have the narrative ready”. “They didn’t want me to tell the truth, they just wanted me to confirm their narrative,” said the lieutenant colonel in a conversation with an interlocutor. According to Lookthe statements were made the week he gave a statement to the PF.

Cid also mentioned supposed pressure from the delegates, who told him that his crimes would lead to 30 years in prison if he did not confirm the “narrative”. And he also criticized the handling of the case by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court. “He already has his sentence ready. Just waiting for some time to pass. Whenever he sees fit, he reports everyone, the PGR accepts it, accepts it and he arrests everyone”, stated the former aide-de-camp.

Mauro Cid’s collaboration fuels a series of investigations against Bolsonaro, involving the forgery of a Covid vaccination card, the dissemination of insults and lies against opponents on social media, the campaign to discredit electronic voting machines and the electoral process conducted by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), the appropriation of valuable gifts (jewelry and watches) given to the Presidency by foreign leaders, the use of the corporate card, and the alleged attempted coup d’état at the end of 2022 to prevent the inauguration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

By order of Moraes, Cid was arrested last Friday (22), the day after the publication of the audios. Called to testify at the STF, he said he just made an “outburst”, “at a bad time” and sought to deny the content of the criticisms about the PF and Moraes. “No one would have forced him. They have [sic] the investigative thesis and he has her version. The versions were often contrary. There was never any inducement to responses. No member of the Federal Police coerced him into saying something that would not have happened”, Cid told the assistant judge of Moraes, in the minister’s office, later confirming that he collaborated “of his own free will”.

Voluntariness is a requirement required by law for a plea bargain and any sign that the employee is speaking under duress must be investigated – if this is confirmed, the evidence collected from their reports must be annulled. This is the well-known thesis of the “fruits of the poisoned tree”: if, in origin, the procedure is not suitable, the results will also necessarily be flawed. Evidence collected independently by the PF would only be valid, not that derived from collaboration, if coercion is confirmed.

In recent years, the STF has established the understanding that the judge in the case can reduce the awards agreed, at the time of the agreement, with the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the police, depending on the effectiveness of the collaboration and the results achieved at the end of the process. In a condition of coercion, the employee is forced to say what the investigators want, who seek to resolve the case in the most efficient way, so as not to lose the benefits promised to them.

Recently, Minister Dias Toffoli has been reviewing fines agreed in leniency agreements for Odebrecht and J&F, based on the allegation that their executives had been coerced by prosecutors from the Federal Public Ministry, under threat that they would be arrested or that the companies would go bankrupt. if they did not agree to report corruption and pay the proposed fines.

“The declaration of will in the leniency agreement must be the product of a free choice. In fact, it is manifestly illegitimate, due to the absence of constitutional justification, the adoption of measures that aim to obtain collaboration or confession, under the pretext of their need for criminal investigation or instruction”, wrote the minister in the decision that suspended the payments owed by Odebrecht.

Experts say the PF’s conduct should be investigated

For some members of the MPF consulted by the report, the suspicion that there was coercion and inducement should, at the very least, lead the Attorney General’s Office (PGR), in the case of Cid, to investigate how the PF has conducted the interrogations. This would be important even to deny the collaborator, if necessary, and remove any stain on the investigation.

The ideal would be to check videos of the interrogations, to observe the stance of the police officers – in statements conducted by the MPF, recordings of the statements are kept and eventually released, but it is not known whether this is being done by the PF, much less whether this material will be made available. . Mauro Cid’s testimony, denying what he said in the audios, would not be enough; after all, he may have also done so out of fear of losing benefits.

For criminalist Yuri Sahione, partner at the Sahione Pugliesr office, an in-depth investigation would lead to two scenarios. If it were found that there was coercion, the evidence collected from the plea would be invalid, and the PF would have to collect other evidence independently, but Cid would maintain the benefits of the agreement, such as the maximum sentence of 2 years in prison, for example. But if he were lying, the PF would take advantage of the evidence based on collaboration and Cid would lose the benefits.

“The PF or MPF could ask the employee to open their cell phone and show the context of sending those audios. As a collaborator, he does not have the right to legal confidentiality, because a waiver of these rights is standard in these agreements. It would perhaps be the best way to identify why he said that and check what was happening”, says the lawyer, with experience in whistleblowing.

Author of a book about award-winning collaboration, professor and master in Criminal Law Eduardo Cabette also understands that the PF internal affairs department should investigate the conduct of police officers, based on the audio. For him, it is natural that, in the statements, police officers put pressure on Cid to say everything he knew. But for him, the testimony at the STF and his subsequent arrest already constitute undue pressure, which should lead to a review of the plea.

“If it hadn’t been coerced before, it was now. The message is: cooperate, otherwise you will be arrested. If he cooperates again, they’ll let him go. It is clearly coercion. The guy passed out there. If it were a normal situation, it wouldn’t be valid at all”, he says.

Contrary to the testimony to the STF, the decision that determined Cid’s preventive detention was not disclosed. It was only reported that the measure was determined because there were indications that there had been obstruction of justice and non-compliance with restrictions imposed on the lieutenant, possibly breaking the prohibition against having contact with other people being investigated. It is not known, however, what exactly motivated the arrest, as the decision remains confidential.


Source link