Brazil ex-President Bolsonaro will stand trial over an alleged coup plan. Here's what happens next.
Bolsonaro will stand trial on the counts of attempting to stage a coup, involvement in an armed criminal organization, attempted violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, damage characterized by violence and a serious threat against the state's assets, and deterioration of listed heritage.
Advertisement
The five-justices panel of Brazil's Supreme Court ruled based on the indictment by Prosecutor-General, Paulo Gonet. His formal accusation came from a federal police investigation that placed Bolsonaro on the top of a criminal organization that had been active since at least 2021.
Gonet also accused Bolsonaro of supporting a plan that allegedly included poisoning his successor, current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and killing Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.
When does the trial start and what will happen?
While a specific trial date has not been set, the chairman of the Supreme Court panel is expected to outline the procedural framework in the coming days.
Eloísa Machado, a law professor at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas university in Sao Paulo, explained that the evidentiary phase of the criminal case, which includes defendant interrogations, witness testimony and further procedures such as expert examinations, begins. Many of those procedures will be conducted by auxiliary judges.
'Then, the rapporteur prepares a report and requests a trial date,' Machado said. 'After this stage, prosecutors and defense attorneys will present their final arguments before the court rules on whether to acquit or convict.'
Bolsonaro's defense team had requested the case to be sent to the full Supreme Court, not just on the 5-justice panel, which could drag a ruling into 2026 as all 11 justices would have their say on the case. The request was denied.
Advertisement
Who will judge Bolsonaro?
Brazil's top court is using one of its two permanent 5-justice panels to put Bolsonaro on trial. None of the five was appointed by Bolsonaro.
As rapporteur of the case, justice de Moraes brought the charges to the one he sits on.
The other four justices are Cármen Lúcia, considered one of the harshest on criminal cases; Cristiano Zanin, the chairman of the panel and Lula's attorney between 2013 and 2023; Flávio Dino, appointed by the leftist president in 2023 after serving as his justice minister; and Luiz Fux, the court's chief-justice between 2020 and 2022, considered a moderate.
Will Bolsonaro go to jail?
Brazilian criminal law mandates that arrests occur only after a final, unappealable conviction.
The Supreme Court of Brazil, being the final appeals tribunal for criminal cases involving public authorities, possesses ultimate jurisdiction over Bolsonaro's case.
If the former president takes any action that hampers the court's ability to deliver its ruling, such as seeking shelter in an embassy, he could be arrested before the trial ends.
What has Bolsonaro said?
Bolsonaro, who has been banned from running for office until 2030 for abuse of power and undermining confidence in the country's voting system, has denied wrongdoing and claims he is the target of political persecution.
'If I go to jail, I will give you a lot of work,' Bolsonaro said after Wednesday's Supreme Court's decision.
Have other Brazilian presidents stood trial?
Lula was convicted of corruption and money laundering by low court judge Sergio Moro in 2017, and had his sentence later upheld by a group of magistrates. He served more than a year and seven months in prison and was released after the Supreme Court changed its jurisprudence to forbid jail time for any Brazilian until all appeals are exhausted.
Advertisement
In 2021, the same court annulled Lula's sentence as it found Moro to be biased. Moro left his position as a federal judge to become Bolsonaro's justice minister.
Michel Temer, who governed between 2016 and 2018 after Dilma Rousseff was impeached, was acquitted by a federal court in 2024 in a corruption and money laundering case. He was briefly arrested in 2019 under the accusation of profiting from fraudulent contracts between state-run Eletronuclear and companies AF Consult Ltd and Engevix during his time as vice president.
Fernando Collor, who governed between 1990 and his impeachment in 1992, was sentenced to eight years and ten months in jail in 2023 for his role in a corruption scheme at then state-run BR Distribuidora. The sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last year, but Collor is yet to be imprisoned.
High-ranking military will be tried for the first time before the Supreme Court
The inclusion of high-ranking military officials to stand trial in Brazil's top court is unprecedented, as the country's transition from a military dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s was marked by a sweeping amnesty for military personnel.
Four high-ranking military officials who operated under Bolsonaro will stand trial. These are former Defense Minister Paulo Sérgio Nogueira; former Navy commander Almir Garnier Santos; retired Gen. Augusto Heleno, who headed the Institutional Security Office; and retired Gen. Walter Braga Netto, who served as Bolsonaro's chief of staff and defense minister.
'Four-star generals accused of plotting a coup are now likely to be convicted and punished under Brazil's democratic legal system,' said João Roberto Martins Filho, a political science professor at the Federal University of Sao Carlos and former president of the Brazilian Association of Defense Studies. 'Anyone who attempts a military-backed coup and fails could face consequences like what we're seeing now. They could end in prison.'
Advertisement
Associated Press writer Mauricio Savarese contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
37 minutes ago
- UPI
Leaders call for unity to counter global far right
Uruguayan President Yamandu Orsi (2-L), Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (L), Chilean President Gabriel Boric (C), Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez (2-R) and Colombian President Gustavo Petro (R), converse during the summit in defense of democracy at La Moneda Palace in Santiago, Chile, on Monday. Photo by Elvis Gonzalez/EPA July 22 (UPI) -- For 24 hours, Chile became the center of a progressive call for unity to counter the rise of the global far right. Under the slogan "Democracy Always," Presidents Gabriel Boric of Chile, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Yamandú Orsi of Uruguay, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez met Monday in the Chilean capital, Santiago, to lay out a common roadmap in the face of what they described as subtle, but corrosive, threats to democracy. During the meeting, participants warned that democracy is being threatened in many parts of the world -- not only by military force, but also by more insidious tools such as disinformation, rising hatred, corruption and the concentration of power. The leaders called for the formation of a united global progressive front. Sánchez denounced what he described as an "international reactionary movement of hate and lies," while Lula warned of "a new antidemocratic offensive." Petro addedd, "Progressive forces around the world must come together and turn on the light when darkness falls." While the "Democracy Always" declaration focused on the need to strengthen multilateralism and address both internal and external threats to democracies, some analysts say the alliance's shared position on the United States can be inferred from the principles it promotes. "The summit strongly emphasized the need to bolster multilateralism as a counterweight to unilateralism. If the United States promotes a form of multilateralism based on respect for international institutions and international law, this progressive front would seek its cooperation," said Manuel Briones, professor of international relations at Chile's Center for Strategic and Competitive Intelligence Studies. The summit occurred at a sensitive geopolitical moment, just weeks before new tariffs to be imposed by the Trump administration are to take effect, impacting Chile, Brazil, European Union nations and many others worldwide. "In Latin America, the summit reinforces the emergence of a regional leadership bloc with progressive leanings," Briones said. "If the administration in the White House chooses a foreign policy more focused on "America First" and less on actively promoting certain democratic agendas through ideological alliances, this new front could pose a subtle challenge -- or at the very least, become an actor Washington will have to engage with from a different perspective." Added Claudio Sánchez, a lawyer and scholar at Chile's Center for Labor Studies: "It's expected that there will be differences in approaches to economic, social and foreign policy, but the progressive governments at the summit generally advocate for a larger role for the state in the economy, more expansive social policies and a more critical stance toward corporate power -- positions that may contrast with certain political sectors in the United States. "However, this doesn't necessarily imply confrontation, but rather a search for dialogue and cooperation in areas of shared interest, while maintaining ideological differences where they exist." Leaders at the summit announced that countries including Mexico, the United Kingdom and Canada plan to join the emerging alliance.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Supreme Court May Play a Role in Jeffrey Epstein Saga
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court may play a key role in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein saga, as associate Ghislaine Maxwell has appealed her conviction to the nation's highest court. Maxwell was convicted on multiple charges, including sex trafficking of a minor and transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in 2021. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in April. "Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein," David Oscar Markus, attorney for Maxwell, said in the filing. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Why It Matters The Epstein case recently made headlines after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI concluded there is no "client list" of prominent individuals linked to Epstein and said no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 69 percent of respondents thought the federal government was hiding details about Epstein's clients. Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, was found dead at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide. What To Know Maxwell's attorney argued she was shielded by a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the U.S. government covering alleged co-conspirators. "I think her lawyers have made a credible argument that she should be entitled not to be prosecuted given that the agreement between Epstein and the government supposedly immunized co-conspirators from criminal prosecution." Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek. "It makes no sense to treat her as if she were not a co-conspiration. Her role in facilitating Epstein's misconduct makes her a co-conspirator." The DOJ argued Maxwell was not a party to this agreement in a brief filed July 14. "There is no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended for the coconspirators clause to benefit petitioner," Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti and attorney Ethan A. Sachs wrote in the filing. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche formally requested federal courts to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell on Friday, one day after Trump said on Truth Social that he asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to "produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval." "Grand jury proceedings are typically confidential and not subject to public inspection. But given the public interest in this case, the federal court might agree to the government's request especially if there are no privacy interests to protect," Wayne Unger, an assistant professor of law at Quinnipiac University, said in comments sent to Newsweek. What People Are Saying Michael Gerhardt, the Burton Craige distinguished professor of jurisprudence at the University of North Carolina, in comments to Newsweek: "It is hard to say whether the Court will take the appeal. The Court usually takes appeals if there is a split among the circuits and/or if the case presents a compelling issue for the Court to decide. Obviously, Maxwell's issue is important to her, but it may not be important to most of the justices." David Oscar Markus, attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell, in a petition for a writ of certiorari: "This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court." Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti and attorney Ethan A. Sachs, in a brief filed July 14: "At all events, the case-specific interpretation of a particular NPA is not a matter that warrants this Court's review." What Happens Next The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear Maxwell's appeal. Federal judges have also yet to rule on the release of grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
3 hours ago
Defendants argue to state's high court that a Pennsylvania DA has been misusing the death penalty
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Two men accused of homicide and facing a potential death sentence if convicted asked Pennsylvania's highest court Tuesday to restrict a county prosecutor's pursuit of the death penalty, accusing him of misusing it to pressure defendants into guilty pleas or get them to turn state's evidence. The two defendants filed a petition before the state Supreme Court that suggests a range of actions to limit Washington County District Attorney Jason Walsh's discretion in asking for capital punishment. 'The arbitrary seeking of the death penalty has become a crisis in Washington County, where a wildly disproportionate number" of the state's prosecutorial death penalty notices of aggravating factors are filed, wrote lawyers for Jordan Clarke and Joshua George. They say Walsh, a Republican appointed in 2021 and elected to keep the job nearly two years ago, has sought the death penalty in 11 of the county's 18 homicide cases during his term in office. Walsh on Tuesday disputed the numbers, saying the county has had more than 18 homicide cases over that period. He said several of the cases during his tenure have involved the deaths of children, where one of the aggravating factors required for the death penalty, the young age of the victim, is simple to demonstrate in court. 'If it fits under the law, prosecutors can seek the death penalty,' Walsh said in a phone interview. 'That's just the law.' The petition asks the justices to adopt 'some or all' of the changes they want. They are asking for Walsh to be required to have an out-of-county judge, the attorney general's office or a court-appointed special master review decisions to seek the death penalty; to stop the death penalty from being pursued in the cases of the two petitioners; and to get an outside judge to review all death penalty cases filed since the year Walsh took office. Washington County is a suburban and rural area of more than 200,000 people with a history of coal mining and gas drilling in the state's southwesternmost corner, about 28 miles (45 kilometers) southwest of Pittsburgh. 'No county has a bottomless well of money to fund defense teams representing indigents facing capital punishment,' lawyers with the Philadelphia-based Atlantic Center for Capital Representation argued in asking the justices to take the unusual step of accepting a case without an underlying appeal. 'The excessive, abusive, and coercive use of the death penalty by District Attorney Walsh has surely strained Washington County's ability to fund constitutionally adequate defenses.' As an example, the filing describes how the prosecutor's office upgraded a woman's charge of conspiracy to commit homicide to add criminal homicide after being told by defense lawyers that conspiracy was not sufficient to face a death penalty. She spent nearly four years in jail before the case was dismissed. Walsh said there is evidence supporting the case and he plans to appeal the dismissal. In Clarke's case, involving a 2-month-old boy's death, the petition alleges Walsh 'intervened to improperly influence the manner of death determination, filed homicide charges and a notice of aggravators before the manner of death was determined, and is pursuing a death sentence based on facially inappropriate aggravating circumstances.' Walsh said state and federal courts have long upheld the legality of the death penalty. In Pennsylvania, only three people have been executed since the 1970s, and all had given up on their appeals. Appeals and natural deaths have shrunk Pennsylvania's death row from well over 200 two decades ago to 94 inmates currently. 'This is nothing but a liberal Hail Mary from a liberal think tank,' Walsh said of the newly filed court petition. 'Those allegations are nonsensical and without merit.'
