Soberania dos veredictos no tribunal do júri

Abstract

The present paper uses the logical deductive methodology to discuss the sovereignty of the jury’s verdicts, balancing it with other constitutional principles, such us the two-tiered legal system, and finding that it is applicable appeal from jury’s decisions in three scenarios, which are: if there is a nullity after the pronouncement; in case of error or injustice in the application of the punishment or another security measure or if the jury’s decision is manifestly contrary to the evidence in the case records. On the other hand, the criminal review will only be admitted in lawsuits that have become res judicata provided that the conviction runs counter to the letter of the criminal law or to the evidence, or is based on statements, exams or documents proved to be false, or even if, after the sentence, it is discovered new evidence of the convict’s innocence or any circumstance that determines or authorizes the special reduction of punishment. With the present research, it can be concluded that, although there is controversy, most of legal doctrine and case law understands it is possible that a jury’s conviction be reviewed, even if it has already become res judicata, through the criminal review institute, despite the existence of the principle of the sovereignty of the verdicts. For jurists who are in favour of a harmonization between the criminal review and the sovereignty of the verdicts, it would prevail the defendant’s right to freedom, the fact that the criminal review would be an individual guarantee more important than the sovereignty of the verdicts, the full defence, as well as other principles.