What to know about Bolsonaro's trial now that he has testified over an alleged coup plot
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
What to know about the trial of Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro
Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro will wear an electronic ankle monitor on orders from the Supreme Court, where he is on trial for allegedly masterminding a coup plot to remain in office despite his defeat in the 2022 election. The case received renewed attention after President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on Brazilian imported goods to Bolsonaro's judicial situation, which Trump called a ' witch hunt.' The Supreme Court's order for Bolsonaro to wear an ankle monitor, among other restrictions, came after Federal Police and prosecutors said Bolsonaro is a flight risk. Authorities, listing multiple social media posts, also accused Bolsonaro of working with his son Eduardo to incite the United States to interfere in the trial and impose sanctions against Brazilian officials. On Friday, the U.S. State Department announced visa restrictions on Brazilian judicial officials, prompting President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 's to condemn what he called the unacceptable interference of one country in another's justice system. Here's what you need to know about Bolsonaro's trial: The charges against Bolsonaro The prosecution accuses Bolsonaro of leading an armed criminal organization, attempting to stage a coup and attempting the violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, aggravated damage, and deterioration of listed heritage sites. A federal police investigation placed Bolsonaro at the top of a criminal organization that had been active since at least 2021. Police say that after Bolsonaro's loss to Lula, the organization conspired to overturn the election result. Part of that plot included a plan to kill Lula and a Supreme Court justice, the prosecution alleges. It also says that the Jan. 8 riot when Bolsonaro supporters ransacked top government buildings a week after Lula took office was an attempt to force military intervention and oust the new president. Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet says Bolsonaro's actions 'were not limited to a passive stance of resistance to defeat, but were a conscious effort to create an environment conducive to violence and a coup.' In the court order unsealed Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes said Bolsonaro and his son may also have committed the crimes of coercion during a legal proceeding, obstruction of an investigation involving a criminal organization and attack on Brazil's sovereignty. What Bolsonaro says Bolsonaro has repeatedly denied the allegations and asserted that he's the target of political persecution. He has echoed Trump and called the trial a 'witch hunt.' The far-right former leader has now been barred from using social media, but on Thursday, he said on X that 'those who challenge the system are being punished, silenced, and isolated.' Regarding the restrictive measures carried out on Friday, Bolsonaro called them a 'supreme humiliation.' 'I never thought about leaving Brazil, I never thought about going to an embassy, but the precautionary measures are because of that,' he told journalists in Brasilia. Next steps After the prosecution called for a guilty verdict in its final allegations issued Tuesday, the defense will soon present its case, likely in the coming weeks. The panel of Supreme Court justices that opened the trial against Bolsonaro will vote on whether to convict or acquit him. Experts say a decision is expected before the end of the year. A guilty verdict on the coup plot charge carries a sentence of up to 12 years, which could, along with guilty verdicts on other charges, bring decades behind bars. But Antonio José Teixeira Martins, a law professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, said Bolsonaro could be detained even before there's a verdict. 'Whether this happens or not depends on how events unfold from now on, that is if these new measures prove sufficient to guarantee public order, the application of criminal law and prevent the risk of escape,' Teixeira Martins said. Brazil's top electoral court has already banned Bolsonaro from running in elections until 2030 over abuse of power while in office and casting unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump wants Supreme Court to crack down on gun rules
Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution. "The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in. That's not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations. Justice Department stopped defending federal handgun rule In a move alarming to groups working to prevent gun violence, the DOJ declined to continue to defend a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun after an appeals court ruled the restriction unconstitutional. "For the government to step back and say, `Hey, here's a major piece of federal firearms legislation that was passed by Congress; we're just not going to bother to defend it any longer,' that's a really, really significant thing," said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center. The DOJ has also told the Supreme Court that the federal government no longer opposes all aspects of a Missouri law - blocked by lower courts after the Biden administration and others challenged it - that would penalize state police for enforcing federal gun control laws. "This is the first time we've seen a Justice Department really actively fight for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans," said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. Hill said it's taken the administration longer than she'd hoped to take a stand and her group is eager for President Donald Trump to repeal federal regulations - including rules on untraceable "ghost guns" that the Supreme Court upheld in March. "But you're seeing a slow pivot of a massive ship back toward the Constitution," she said. "And I'm extremely encouraged by the trajectory." Trump: `No one will lay a finger on your firearms' During a 2024 campaign stop to address thousands of members of the National Rifle Association in Pennsylvania, Trump promised that "no one will lay a finger on your firearms" if voters put him back in the White House. "Your Second Amendment will always be safe with me as your president," Trump said. Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing a review of Biden-era firearm policies and of the positions the government has taken in gun-related litigation. Legal challenges to firearm rules spiked after the court created a new test for gun laws in its 2022 decision striking down a New York law that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun. The court said gun rules must be similar to a historical regulation on weapons to pass constitutional muster. Lower courts divided over age restriction on handguns As the administration was changing hands in January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a decades-old federal law banning handgun purchases by 18- to 20-year-olds fails that test. "The history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment," U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote for the court. In July, the DOJ told a lower court that the government is not going to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. But the high court may still take up the issue. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence In June, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion as the 5th Circuit, ruling against a similar challenge. "From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21," U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. The four 18- to 20-year-olds challenging the age restriction have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The DOJ has not yet filed its response. More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Debate over the right to carry a gun in public In its brief supporting a challenge to Hawaii's law prohibiting the carrying of handguns onto someone else's property without their consent, the government said that the rule "effectively nullifies" the general right to carry a gun in public that the court upheld in 2022. "Someone carrying a firearm for self-defense cannot run errands without fear of criminal sanctions," Sauer told the court. Sanchez-Gomez, the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center, said property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. But Hawaii's law makes the default that handguns aren't allowed unless there's express permission, rather than that they are allowed unless they're expressly prohibited. When the court limited states' control over who could publicly carry guns, she said, the focus turned to where in public they could bring them. Alex McCourt, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, said the Supreme Court could take up the case not so much because the Trump administration wants them to but because one appeals court upheld Hawaii's rule while a different appeals court rejected New York's. "The fact that we have these differing opinions across the country probably weighs even heavier in the Supreme Court's mind," he said. Still, McCourt said, it's relatively rare for the high court to weigh in on gun laws. "They often say no," he said. Justice Department backs challenge to bans on AR-15s In June, the justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons, although Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects his colleagues "will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two." Days later, the Justice Department urged the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a similar law in Illinois. "Because the Act is a total ban on a category of firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons, it is flatly unconstitutional," lawyers for the DOJ wrote in a legal brief supporting the challenge. The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups fighting Illinois' law, called the DOJ's filing a critical step toward Trump fulfilling his promise to defend the Second Amendment. "We hope Solicitor General Sauer will stand with us on this issue at the Supreme Court," coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement, "when this case inevitably heads up."
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump EPA cuts research and development office
"Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback," Lee Zeldin, the agency's administrator, said in a statement. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars." Officials said the creation of the applied science and environmental solutions office would allow EPA to prioritize research and science while putting it "at the forefront of rulemakings and technical assistance to states." EPA said organizational changes are saving nearly $750 million. The agency had already been subject to cuts in the new administration. A July 8 Supreme Court ruling allowed the Trump administration to implement sweeping reductions by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. In January, EPA had 16,155 employees, but the agency said it will now have 12,448 workers. It's unclear how many staff are affected by the July 18 announcement, while some will be reassigned in the agency. In an email, an EPA spokesperson said the next step would be sending notices to individual employees. The office includes biologists, chemists, epidemiologists and toxicologists. Scientists deal with emerging pollutants, including researching environmental emergencies such as floods, train derailments and wildfires, according to Nicole Cantello, legislative and political director for the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents EPA workers. "EPA is hellbent on destroying the foremost environmental research organization in the world," Cantello said. "That will only result in dirty air, dirty water and more health risks for the American people." Justin Chen, the union president, said the research and development office also sets regulatory guidelines for measuring pollutant levels. The restructuring places scientific research closer to the administrator, a political appointee, who "you can very well see turning a blind eye on things that may be inconvenient to friends of the administration," Chen said. In March, Democrats on the House science committee said there were about 1,540 employees across the country in EPA's reorganization plan of the Office of Research and Development. Lawmakers warned the plans would eliminate the EPA research and development office staffing by about 50-75%. The New York Times first reported on the plans. "The obliteration of (the Office of Research and Development) will have generational impacts on Americans' health and safety," Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, the committee's ranking chair, said in a July 18 statement. "This is a travesty." The research and development office had been in the crosshairs of organizations allied with Trump, as the Times reported. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, specifically cited the EPA science office in Project 2025, the blueprint for Trump to reconfigure and downsize the federal government. Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
