Flávio Dino and the Curtailment of Defense: Filipe Martins’ Lawyer Removed from the STF Podium

The Episode in the Plenary

The trial of the so-called second core of the alleged coup plot was marked by a serious episode: Justice Flávio Dino, president of the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), ordered the Judicial Police to physically remove attorney Jeffrey Chiquini from the podium. The defense lawyer for Filipe Martins refused to leave after having a point of order denied. Curiously, the scene was not broadcast by TV Justiça, which kept the camera focused only on the Justice, omitting the full record of the intervention.

Censorship and Curtailment of Defense

During his oral argument, Chiquini denounced the existence of censorship and arbitrariness, pointing out that relevant evidence had been barred by rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes. Among them were images and documents that could have reinforced the defense’s thesis. The lawyer emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the full right of defense, including the choice of evidence and the timing of its presentation. By preventing the presentation of these elements, the STF committed procedural curtailment, undermining the legitimacy of the trial.

Ignored Evidence and Procedural Manipulation

• Barred evidence: photos and videos that could demonstrate Filipe Martins’s innocence were blocked.
• Accusatory innovation: the Prosecutor General’s Office allegedly inserted new dates and facts outside the deadline, hindering the defense.
• Reliance on plea bargains: accusations rely almost exclusively on the word of informants, without robust documentation.
• Contradictions: other defendants, such as General Teófilo, were acquitted for lack of evidence, while Martins remains accused under similar conditions.

Flávio Dino’s Role

Dino’s stance, in ordering the removal of a lawyer in the full exercise of defense, represents an act of institutional censorship. More than maintaining order, the Justice effectively revoked a constitutional right, creating a dangerous precedent for advocacy and due process. The episode reinforces criticism that the STF has acted in an arbitrary manner, shielding its decisions and limiting transparency.

What Is at Stake

• Right of defense: the episode exposes fragility in the constitutional guarantee of broad defense.
• Transparency: TV Justiça’s omission raises suspicions about control of the institutional narrative.
• Democratic balance: decisions that curtail lawyers erode public trust in the Judiciary.
• Precedent: opens the door to new restrictions on advocacy in sensitive trials.

Critical Conclusion

The trial of Filipe Martins revealed not only political tensions but also a serious institutional setback. By censoring evidence and removing a lawyer from the podium, the STF, under Flávio Dino’s order, compromised the principle of broad defense and exposed Brazilian Justice to criticism of authoritarianism. More than an isolated incident, the episode symbolizes the growing distance between the Judiciary and the democratic foundations it should protect.

CTA: Want to understand how judicial decisions directly impact democracy and the right of defense? Explore other articles by Pedro Freitas and keep your critical eye on the Brazilian Judiciary.

Source:

• Revista Oeste / CartaCapital