A sessão plenária do tribunal do júri sem a presença do réu: afronta ao princípio constitucional da plenitude da defesa.

Abstract

This research has the purpose to demonstrate the need for the presence of the defendants in the trial sessions held by the jury as a way to ensure the effectiveness of the constitutional principle of the fullness of defense. To achieve the objective collimated the method was deductive and exegetical and legal in order to seek the theoretical background necessary to elucidate the problem that now seems. For a better understanding of the topic, addresses the origin and evolution of this institute since its inception to the present constitutional order in force, sought to focus on their relevance to the legal and democratic state. Thereafter shall discuss the principles guaranteed the grand jury, seeking to focus on their relevance to the current reality that law. Later, he stood out the current procedure of People's Court with the amendments inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the rule of law No. 11.689/2008. And finally focuses on holding the session of the People's Court trial without the defendant's physical presence, highlighting the doctrinal positions for and against such a possibility. The controversy about the theme is based on the fact that Law No. 11.689/08 altered the procedure procedure of the jury, which entered the legislative text for this possibility in the article 457 of the CPP. However, by examining the principles which line the existence of that body, especially the fullness of defense is to demonstrate that the legal provision that allows the prosecution on the floor without the physical presence of the defendant can not be maintained in legal text. This is because the defense is fully guaranteed to defendants in Plenary of the Jury, because they are judged by ordinary citizens, who judge according to its free conviction. In this step, the intention of this work is to show that although the law provides that it is possible to conduct the trial without the physical presence of the accused, this provision violates the constitutional principles that govern the existence of said Board, therefore, becomes such provision unconstitutional and must be interpreted by the Superior Courts.