What to know about Bolsonaro's trial now that he has testified over an alleged coup plot
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's former president Jair Bolsonaro has finally testified before the country's Supreme Court over an alleged plot to remain in power and overturn the 2022 election result.
After Bolsonaro and 33 allies were charged in February with five counts related to a plan to remain in power, a five-Justice panel of Brazil's top court opened a first trial for eight of them, including the former leader.
Judges will hear from 26 other defendants in coming months.
The former president has repeatedly denied the allegations and said he is the target of political persecution, but kept a soft tone in his testimony on Tuesday.
The case stems from a Jan. 8, 2023 riot, when the Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidential Palace in Brasilia, the capital, were stormed by thousands of Bolsonaro supporters. Police say the uprising — which came after current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in — was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president.
If convicted for the alleged coup, Bolsonaro could be sentenced to up to 12 years. When combined with the other charges, the accused might face decades behind bars.
The case might not be over even after a conviction by the panel, which Bolsonaro can appeal before Brazil's Supreme Court full panel.
Here's what is next in the trial:
Testimonies
The testimonies of the eight defendants is the final stage of the evidence collection phase, but their attorneys are allowed to request additional searches to help their case. Legal experts have said it is unlikely that Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the presiding judge and a member of the panel, will allow it. The evidence phase will be deemed complete once de Moraes decides on all requests.
Final allegations
Fifteen days after the collection phase is finished, Brazil's attorney-general will be allowed to present his final allegations. The attorneys of the defendants will get the same chance. Each of those allegations are expected to take several hours or even days. This needs to be completed before July, when Brazil's Supreme Court enters its recess until August. As soon as the final allegations stage is completed, the sentencing phase starts.
Sentencing
A Supreme Court panel of five judges will decide whether Bolsonaro and his allies are guilty or not. The judges who will decide the future of Brazil's former president are de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino and Luiz Fux. All of them had public battles with Bolsonaro. De Moraes was the primary judge in several cases against the far-right leader, while Zanin and Dino joined the court as Lula's appointees. Lúcia and Fux were also targets of Bolsonaro during their respective tenures chairing the electoral court and the Supreme Court. Should Bolsonaro be convicted, these judges will also decide his penalty.
What if he's found guilty
Bolsonaro would still be able to appeal to Brazil's Supreme Court full panel. Brazil's top prosecutor could do the same if the former president is not convicted on all counts. Before any potential jail time, Bolsonaro's lawyers could further delay the conclusion of the trial by asking for clarifications on the decisions of each judge. Legal experts have said all these steps are likely to be concluded by the end of the year.
___
Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america
Mauricio Savarese, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Protesting in Tennessee: What are your rights?
Rhetoric surrounding constitutionally protected protests, both on the state and national level, has been heated lately. More than 20 Tennessee gatherings are expected June 14, which is President Trump's birthday and the date of a scheduled U.S. Army's 250th anniversary parade. People may also assemble ahead of the arraignment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whose deportation to El Salvador made him a flashpoint regarding Trump's immigration policy. It's scheduled for 10 a.m. June 13 in Nashville. If you choose to partake in this classic First Amendment activity, here's what you should know about your rights: More: 'No Kings Day' protests planned for June 14 with aim to reclaim the American flag Yes. The First Amendment protects the people's right to protest through the enshrined rights of free speech, assembly and petition. However, there are some narrow restrictions on the exercise of these rights that are allowed to be implemented by law enforcement and government officials in the interest of public safety. Rarely, though it can depend on your location. There is a First Amendment principle commonly known as the 'public forum doctrine,' which divides most government property into three categories: traditional public forums, limited public forums and nonpublic forums. Most protests occur in traditional public forums, which includes locations like public parks, public sidewalks and areas usually open for expressive activity. Former Supreme Court Judge Byron White, who is known for defining the borders of speech forums in the case Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983), said that in 'quintessential' public forums, 'the government may not prohibit all communicative activity,' and noted that most content-based restrictions in these areas should be viewed with serious caution. The First Amendment only restricts the actions of the government regarding speech, not that of private individuals, organizations or businesses. If you are in a public space, you have the right to video and photograph anything within plain view, including law enforcement, federal buildings and fellow protesters. If you are audio recording in public, there is generally an understanding that there is no expectation of privacy. However, you should be aware of your state's laws regarding consensual audio recording. While a majority of states favor one-party consent for audio recording, some require two. Tennessee is a one-party consent state. Check your state's law here. If you enter private property, these First Amendment protections do not apply, and the property owner may set the rules for audio and visual recording. Some states have laws known frequently as 'halo' laws, which dictate how closely citizens can stand to law enforcement when officers are working. Tennessee recently passed such a law, which bans standing within 25 feet of a police officer after being told to retreat. It will go into effect on July 1. Similar buffer-zone laws in Arizona, Louisiana, Florida and Indiana, which have no exception for journalists, have all faced public and legal pushback on First Amendment grounds. Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that burning the American flag is a form of protected speech and expression under the First Amendment, with the Court later affirming in United States v. Eichman (1990) that a federal statute against flag burning would be unconstitutional. The issue has sparked debate recently after Trump called for protesters who burn the American flag at protests to spend a year in jail. 'They proudly carry flags of other countries, but they don't carry the American flag. They only burn it," Trump said on June 10, while speaking at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year. And we'll see if we can get that done." It's not the first time Trump has made the claim. At a campaign event in Detroit, Michigan in August 2024, he proposed the same punishment, complaining that advisors told him it was unconstitutional. 'They say, 'Sir, that's unconstitutional,'' he said. 'We'll make it constitutional.' Law enforcement cannot confiscate your phone or camera, nor demand to review its contents, without a search warrant, per citizen's Fourth Amendment rights. They may ask you to stop videotaping or photographing if the action is legitimately interfering with public safety or law enforcement activities. Even if you believe officers are violating your First Amendment rights, do not resist or argue with officers. Instead, calmly assert your First Amendment right to demonstrate while asking if you are free to leave. If you are, leave immediately. If you are placed under arrest, ask for a lawyer immediately. Do not say or sign anything until a lawyer is present. The USA TODAY Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@ by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Protesting in Tennessee: What are your rights?
CNN
40 minutes ago
- CNN
Tracking the major Supreme Court cases of 2025
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it issues this term's final flurry of opinions — some of which concern hot-button issues like birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care — before breaking for summer recess. CNN is tracking the key Supreme Court cases of the 2024-2025 term. Justices have ruled on some major cases already, including one involving 'reverse discrimination' and another tied to gun violence at the border. More than 40% of total cases remain. Here's what we know so far and what we're still waiting on. Among the cases that have already landed is Ames v. Ohio, a lawsuit in which a woman alleged she was discriminated against by her gay boss because she is straight. The court unanimously sided with the plaintiff in early June, making it easier to win 'reverse discrimination' suits in some parts of the country. The Supreme Court also threw out a lawsuit from the Mexican government that argued American gunmakers should be held accountable for contributing to gun violence and chaos at the border. The lawsuit alleged that the American companies were marketing firearms specifically to drug cartels and gangs. In a 9-0 ruling, however, the court said the Mexican government did not 'plausibly allege' that manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful sales. The Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on some of the most important cases of the term, which could have far-reaching implications for millions of Americans. One of those cases centers on birthright citizenship — which guarantees citizenship to all children born on US soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The justices will decide whether President Donald Trump can deny birthright citizenship through an executive order, effectively reshaping long-standing legal precedent. A high-profile case concerning transgender care is also on the docket. The court is reviewing Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors and penalizes healthcare providers who violate the law. More than half of all US states have passed bans on medical care for trans youth. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, however, have enacted 'shield' laws to preserve access to trans health care. As part of a yearslong effort to expand parental rights in schools, parents of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland are suing the state's board of education for violating their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether elementary schools need to allow parents to opt their children out of reading LGBTQ+ books in class. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has signaled that they would side with the parents.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
