Marielle Franco murder trial’s opening day marked by defense challenging key witness testimony

The Supreme Federal Court’s initial session in the high-profile Marielle Franco and Anderson Gomes murder case concluded with nearly six hours of oral arguments. This pivotal day saw the prosecution present its claims for one hour, followed by each of the five defense teams, who also spoke for an hour.

A central theme emerged as defense lawyers uniformly attacked the plea bargain testimony of Ronnie Lessa. They asserted a critical lack of independent evidence to corroborate the accusations presented by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

The session of the First Panel was characterized by intricate technical disputes and a notably silent atmosphere within the plenary chamber. Ministers listened intently to all five oral arguments, refraining from interventions or questions, underscoring the gravity and tension of the proceedings.

Key Defense Strategies Emerge

Across the board, defense attorneys lambasted Lessa’s collaboration as “tenebrous,” a “mental creation,” “mere rhetoric,” and “without legal value.” They consistently argued that no independent proof existed to substantiate the former police officer’s statements, central to the prosecution’s case against the alleged masterminds.

This coordinated approach aimed to dismantle the credibility of the primary witness, suggesting his testimony was fabricated for personal benefit rather than rooted in verifiable truth. The legal teams sought to highlight what they perceived as significant gaps in the evidentiary chain, beyond Lessa’s narrative.

Accusation’s Stance and Counterarguments

Before the defense presentations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PGR) asserted that the Brazão brothers were integral members of an armed criminal organization linked to militias. This group, according to the prosecution, was structured and active in Rio de Janeiro, deeply involved in land grabbing schemes.

The PGR contended that Marielle Franco’s activism against militias and irregular urban expansion in the West Zone directly conflicted with the group’s financial and political interests. Therefore, the assassination was allegedly premeditated to eliminate political opposition and to send a chilling message to other lawmakers.

The deputy prosecutor preemptively addressed anticipated criticism regarding the plea bargain, emphasizing that the charges were not solely reliant on the collaborator’s words. He affirmed, “The isolated word of the collaborator is not sufficient for conviction. The indictment is not solely based on it. The body of evidence is extensive and robust.”

The Core of the Delation Challenge

Defense lawyers meticulously dissected the nature of the plea agreement, portraying Ronnie Lessa as a witness with a vested interest in distorting facts. They painted his testimony as a constructed narrative, designed to shift blame and secure personal advantages within the justice system, rather than provide an accurate account of events.

The primary legal challenge revolved around the absence of corroborating evidence that could independently verify Lessa’s allegations. Defense teams repeatedly stressed that a plea bargain, by its very nature, requires external validation to hold significant weight, a factor they claimed was conspicuously missing in the PGR’s presentation.

Specific Defense Arguments Unfolded

The defense for former federal deputy Chiquinho Brazão explicitly denied any ties to militia groups in Rio de Janeiro, directly refuting the claim that he acted in their favor. His legal team further argued that Marielle Franco did not have a strong focus on land tenure issues, thereby undermining the primary motive attributed to the crime by the prosecution.

Domingos Brazão’s defense maintained that the PGR failed to establish a credible motive for the assassination. They argued Domingos had no involvement in illegal land grabbing and that Marielle was not directly engaged in land-related causes. His lawyers described Lessa’s collaboration as a “constructed story,” where the delator allegedly used real events but altered key figures to gain benefits.

Attorneys representing Rivaldo Barbosa, the former head of Rio’s Civil Police, dismissed the plea bargain as mere “rhetoric.” They asserted a complete lack of concrete evidence linking him to the murder and highlighted the inability, throughout the investigative process, to identify any plausible motive for his alleged involvement.

Major Ronald Pereira’s legal counsel emphasized that he and Lessa were not close, but rather adversaries, which they argued made any collaboration in the crime highly improbable. The defense questioned the PGR’s decision to accept a plea deal from someone declared an “enemy” of the accused, casting doubt on the entire premise.

Robson Calixto’s Plea and Procedural Focus

Robson Calixto’s defense team contended that there was no evidentiary link connecting him to the facts of the case. His lawyers argued that the prosecution’s attempt to associate him with a criminal organization was based solely on his past role as an advisor to Domingos Brazão, an association they stated did not, by itself, constitute an illicit act or criminal involvement.

Plenary Dynamics and Family Presence

In the front rows of the plenary, the families of Marielle Franco and Anderson Gomes observed the proceedings from beginning to end. Anielle Franco, Marielle’s sister and Minister of Racial Equality, remained in the chamber for the majority of the session, stepping out only during the oral argument presented by Chiquinho Brazão’s lawyer. Other political allies and parliamentarians, including Congressman Marcelo Freixo, a close friend of Marielle and a figure reportedly considered as an initial target by the Brazão brothers in earlier investigations, also attended the weighty judgment. The third Brazão brother, Congressman Pedro Brazão, was also present with his spouse, adding another layer of family presence to the intensely scrutinized trial.

Next Steps in the Landmark Case

The session was adjourned following the extensive oral arguments from both the prosecution and the defense teams. It was scheduled to resume the following day, Wednesday, with the votes of the justices for conviction or acquittal. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the rapporteur for the case, was set to cast the first vote, marking a critical juncture in this highly anticipated legal process.