Tribunal do Júri: Jurados não adstritos aos laudos periciais, o valor da prova técnica no processo penal.

Abstract

The present work deals with the Jury Court, a constitutionally established institute as a right and individual guarantee, a stone clause and the law of the defendant and society. In its institution, four principles were listed to the Jury, the fullness of the defense, the secrecy of the votes, the sovereignty of the verdicts and the competence to judge the willful crimes against life. When the peers judge, the peers are free to decide according to their intimate conviction and, therefore, they do not need to motivate their decisions with respect to the principle of confidentiality of votes. It so happens that, as natural judges of intentional crimes against life, they are not attached to the expert report, in the same way as the judge, who may reject it or accept it in whole or in part, in accordance with article 182 of the Code of Criminal proceedings. Due to this freedom and the lack of legal knowledge, jurors often decide against the expert evidence in a contrary way. Expert evidence, known as technical evidence, is a means of proof that influences the judgment of the judge and serves him. Made by an official expert or not, the expertise is always more relevant at the time of the assessment than the other admitted means of proof, except in specific cases. Expert evidence is imbued with a greater degree of certainty, impartiality and credibility. When rejecting the expert report, a conclusive document signed by the experts after the expert examinations have been carried out, the jurors may incur a dissonant verdict in the case, that is, a decision manifestly contrary to the evidence in the case, since the decision in no other evidential element is based on and visibly disagreeing with the evidence framework. When this occurs, the second degree of jurisdiction is responsible for mitigating the principle of the sovereignty of verdicts when deciding to annul the sentence manifestly contrary to the evidence in the file. Through the means of challenging the judges' decisions, namely the appeal provided for in article 593, item III, item “d”, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the principle of the sovereignty of verdicts, the foundation of the Jury Court, finds a limitation. However, the second degree of jurisdiction, acting as a limiter and, at the same time, confirming the principle of the sovereignty of verdicts, when judging the appeal based on the manifest contradiction of the evidence in the case, cannot replace the decision of the jurors, it will only be up to revocation of the decision, determining the realization of a new trial session. The case-by-case analysis is essential to the formation of an understanding about whether or not the annulment of the judgment session is appropriate, there are cases in which, despite deciding contrary to the expert evidence, the jurors appreciate or other evidential elements contained in the records and, thus, decide in a coherent manner, with no evident opposition to the evidence in the file.