Post by nurnobi85 on Feb 12, 2024 0:16:46 GMT -5
The content of the charge and the respective evidence and the right to debate this evidence and produce new ones . ” ( emphasis added ) This same understanding – which highlights the essentially dialogical character of the state procedure instituted with the aim of araiva), in teaching in which these eminent authors highlight the right – which belongs to any accused person ( including in political-administrative procedures) – to produce evidence that refutes or neutralizes the elements of information that are unfavorable to him/her, and it is , consequently, the responsibility of the accused person ( whether in criminal , whether at the legislative or administrative level), the right to challenge the evidentiary material that.
Could result in prejudice to one's defense, notably if produced with an inversion of the procedural formulas. In the case under examination , as previously noted, the petitioner was not assured of the possibility of producing testimonial evidence (which was the evidence he postulated) that would allow Dubai Email List him to eliminate the allegedly harmful content resulting from the late testimony – because it was provided after the examination of defense witnesses – by Kátia Rabello , listed to support the punitive claim, which, brought against Deputy José Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva, aims to enable the revocation of the legislative mandate held by him. This is why , in this case, the nullity of the process of revocation of the petitioner.
Parliamentary mandate is maintained , from a certain moment in the investigative phase, due to the inversion of the order of precedence in the taking of testimonial statements, because a certain witness was interviewed prosecution (Ms. Kátia Rabello) after the examination of witnesses listed by the defense had concluded . In any process that may result in the imposition of punitive sanctions or measures restricting rights, there is an order of precedence in the examination of witnesses, “ those of the prosecution must be heard first ” ( CPP , art . 396, “ caput ” ), under penalty of violating the “ due process of law ” clause, as long as the inversion of this formula results in harm to the accused.
Could result in prejudice to one's defense, notably if produced with an inversion of the procedural formulas. In the case under examination , as previously noted, the petitioner was not assured of the possibility of producing testimonial evidence (which was the evidence he postulated) that would allow Dubai Email List him to eliminate the allegedly harmful content resulting from the late testimony – because it was provided after the examination of defense witnesses – by Kátia Rabello , listed to support the punitive claim, which, brought against Deputy José Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva, aims to enable the revocation of the legislative mandate held by him. This is why , in this case, the nullity of the process of revocation of the petitioner.
Parliamentary mandate is maintained , from a certain moment in the investigative phase, due to the inversion of the order of precedence in the taking of testimonial statements, because a certain witness was interviewed prosecution (Ms. Kátia Rabello) after the examination of witnesses listed by the defense had concluded . In any process that may result in the imposition of punitive sanctions or measures restricting rights, there is an order of precedence in the examination of witnesses, “ those of the prosecution must be heard first ” ( CPP , art . 396, “ caput ” ), under penalty of violating the “ due process of law ” clause, as long as the inversion of this formula results in harm to the accused.