Only in a lawsuit oriented by “lawfare”, would the Judge find suitable to authorize the production of official evidence in favor of the prosecution and deny the rebuttal evidence requested by the defense. That is what happened once again in the so called “three story apartment lawsuit” filed against former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The Curitiba Judge determined the inclusion of “other” criminal actions filed by the Federal Attorney’s Office against Lula. In view of the objection filed by the former President’s defense, the aforementioned public official declared that such conduct is “customary” in said Court and also denied the request to present evidence in other lawsuits involving Lula – which are obviously favorable to the former President. This is a clearly illegitimate lawsuit.
Read bellow the defense’s request, which has been denied by the following ruling:
“6. Event 330: Defense of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva Claims that this Court requested to the 10th Federal Court of Brasília information regarding the current stage of the criminal actions pending before that Court against the former President.
They allege the measure is unlawful and request the removal of the material included in event 278. If denied, they make a secondary plea for a new official letter to be issued by the aforementioned Court in order to be sent to this Court, videos and audios related to the written record of testimony previously given by the witnesses called.
It is customary for the Court to request the defendants’ criminal records and information on the current stage of other lawsuits in which they are also defendants, taking into account their possible legal aspects. So it is not even a matter of determining the production of evidence by the Judge.
Even if it were, it would be in accordance to Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I deny, therefore, the motion to strike.
Regarding the secondary plea, it us up to the Defense, which is also a party in those records, to directly provide the inclusion of said evidence, not being necessary the intervention of this Court. This Court will only intervene in the case of denial by the other Court.”
