Aula Do Professor Nilo Batista - Estudo De Caso : O Julgamento De Olga Sueli Dantas - Parte I

Hey, Professor Nilo is acting like Guilherme

Calmão, starting his class at 9 o'clock sharp

. Okay, just to remind you that this

, well, this is actually a course,

right? The case study course is a

case study module that will be

given within the specialization course

in criminal law, right? A

postgraduate specialization course that we offer

at ERERGE, a partnership between UERGE and

OABRJ. whose coordinator is Professor

Nilo Batista, the academic coordinator, and

we are the executive coordinators, myself,

Rafael Fagundes, and Diogo Flora, right? The

course is about to enter its fourth

edition, right? We will have some

students attending in person today, and

others online. So, the idea

is that, in fact, this class doesn't

fit within our project.

All good? Well, we're going to have

a class here today with Professor Nilo Batista. For

those who don't know him, Professor Nelo

Batista... yeah, just kidding. Yeah, so he's

going to, he's going to teach two classes here with

us. We'll have a break

around 10:30, right, professor,

to get some water and coffee. Then we'll return

to the final stage. It's a

great pleasure to have you all here. We are

very happy. This course is part

of a project started by

Professor Nilo, actually, a few

decades ago, which we have resumed, right?

I, Fagundes, and Diogo Flora recently got back together

. The idea is to have a

postgraduate program that integrates, you know,

mainly young lawyers into

the legal market, starting from

practical notions of the

professional activity. That's the idea behind this

course, that's the idea behind this subject.

I'm sure

you'll have a great pleasure watching this class today.

Just a reminder that

I can speak starting at 11:00 AM, right, professor?

Can I say this? Starting at 11 o'clock, there

will be—by the way, the book that, you see

, folks, the lesson you're going to have

today—has already been turned into a book, has

n't it? It just so happens that the book was finished

yesterday, a very thin book was finished

yesterday. So, at 11 am the

publisher will be here and anyone who

wants to buy it will be able to get the Lumenures copy.

The book will be available here,

in a completely unprecedented way. I don't think

even Professor Danilo has seen the finished book yet

, right? It was finished overnight

, and they're bringing it here today for

anyone who wants to buy it, okay? Hey, just don't

ask Professor Nilo to sign autographs

because he'll be tired by the end of the day,

and he'll take photos and sign

autographs for you at other times, okay? So that's

it, enjoy the lesson. Professor,

thank you for your availability

, your presence, and for the inspiration you

are to our

legal profession. It is a great pleasure for us to

have you here. I'm sure it

will be a delight.

Well,

thank you very much. I'm the one who should thank

Rafael Borges, Rafael Fagundes, and

Diogo, who isn't here right now, for

maintaining and carrying on

this course, which is so important. It is

possible to teach criminal advocacy

alongside criminal law,

criminal procedure, judicial organization,

notions of logic and rhetoric, and

forensic language. It's possible. And this

course has

had this ambition ever since it was first conceived, actually a few decades ago, let's not say how many. I

also thank the school principal for the

use of the space. I thank the martyrs

who came here to bring human warmth,

not to mention the recording of a class, or rather,

two classes that make up a course, that are

part of a course. There is a

subject in the course called

case studies.

And this is a case study.

Case studies are a learning system in

law, right? In some law schools,

especially in the

Commodore regime, the CAS System is a

very widely applied methodology, right? It's

always an inductive method, right, where

you start from a particular and arrive at

general principles. In our case, ah, you'll see

the richness of this method, because from this

judgment we harvested five fruits, or

rather, five provocations waiting for

one of you to develop one of

them.

The case we're going to study: the

crime occurred in 1949,

the last trial was in 1951,

right?

The last session of the second jury, since

the first one had been dismissed by the Court of

Justice,

was on November 6, 1951. I just want to

start by saying who was

participating. There was a judge there,

Nestor Perlingeiro, who, incidentally, came from

a traditional family of magistrates

in the old province. The

public prosecutor was

Renê Destre, but the lawyers for the

prosecution were simply

Evando Lins Silva, who, true to the good

advice of always having

a colleague from the jury community as a representative in jury trials, followed his advice.

The crime took place in Duque de Caxias in '49.

He put a lawyer there, Tenório

Cavalcante,

who did some things that you're already

aware of. And when he was defiantly

sent to Niterói, it was with the help of

Cruz, who would later become president of the

old province's branch.

In the defense tribune we had Flores da

Cunha, Getúlio Vargas's interventor in

Rio Grande do Sul in 1930, a member of the Constituent Assembly in 1946, and a

congressman at that time. We had

Getúlio de Moura, a leader of the

1930 revolution in the Baixada Fluminense region, and also the

political mentor of Tenório Cavalcante.

This isn't in the text, but it's the

historical truth.

And he's a very skilled lawyer, as we

shall see. And Romero Neto. Romero Neto,

who had also been elected deputy in 1950

. Getúlio de Moura had been a member of the

Constituent Assembly in 1946

and was a congressman at that time. In the

defense tribune, all three were deputies.

In the prosecution's booth, Evand wasn't a

congressman yet, but he was going to be everything you

know he was. Chancellor,

Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General of the Republic

for a short period, and Justice of the

Supreme Federal Court. I say this so

you understand how

rhetoric books always link

forensic eloquence to political eloquence,

as opposed to sacred eloquence. This

occupies a different space, but

political eloquence, and of course, there's that thing about

representation,

right, which the lawyer,

well, has in common with the deputy or

senator: representation.

He's standing in front of a door, he's standing in

front of a counter, but he's not there

for his own self-interest, he's representing

someone. And this is a political fact that

is meticulously studied in political science

; it's representation, you know, that the

legal profession shares with politics.

Okay, so let's give a brief

overview, a summary of the case, and we

'll gather five thought-provoking points in due

course, but this is just so you don't get

too curious. First, let's study the

following.

In 1950, was forensic eloquence

following the patterns of modernism that

had been introduced three decades earlier

in Brazilian literature, or was it

still subordinate

to an eloquence of a

romantic nature? This is the first issue

we're going to try to unravel.

The second issue is patriarchalism,

sexism, and homophobia in the

People's Court. Or in the penal system, needless

to say, right? There's nothing more

homophobic and sexist than the

police institution, right? There are a lot of people in the

judicial institution, you understand? The penal system is

full of patriarchs, macho men, and

homophobes. No, but let's see in this

case how it happened, because

sometimes it happens in a

subtle way, we don't notice it at the time.

Thirdly, I'm going to talk about

moral and social coercion, which was the

essential theme of the trial, and which led

to the acquittal.

And so,

fourthly, we will examine

this surprising Supreme Court ruling

that prohibited lawyers from speaking of

legitimate defense of honor and that stated that

honor is not defensible.

And lastly, we're going to propose a

comparison between punitive mentalities

in the mid-20th century, that is, in the

1940s and 50s.

And today we're going to take the period from 2005 to the present and

see if there are any differences. How

could this study be done,

because I mostly suggest how to

conduct these studies rather than actually developing them myself?

Let's move on to the synthesis of the

field. Around 1947,

Olga Sueli Dantas, who was a

poor young woman, had a

job in a notary's office; she

was a clerk in a notary's office in Duque

de Caxias, right? She met Alcir

Gonçalves Vieira, who was the son of a very

wealthy merchant in Cachei named

Manuel Gonçalves Vieira. They

met, didn't they? They

loved each other, they were committed.

And they loved each other. This order, as I say

here, cannot be reversed because for

some reason, which may be

religious upbringing,

prejudices, or

whatever, a certain type of virgin

was reserved for marriage; she was a

convinced virgin. And we're talking about

1949,

right, where, let's say, the place of women was

an extremely restricted and

monitored one in Brazilian society.

So they started, and after that,

when there was a very clear promise of

marriage, after a year for the

prosecution, two years for the defense, but there was

a promise of marriage and all that,

he frequented the house, called

Olga Sufeli's mother "mother," taught her and so on, and

well, they loved each other. right? At a certain point

she becomes pregnant, and

he proposes that they have an

abortion. This will be an

argument

in the trial, because if Algasson

had any interest

in the Vieira family's gold, as will also come

up a lot in the trial, all she had to do

, as Romero Neto will say

explicitly, was not have the

abortion, and her son would inherit, whether he

wanted to or not, the old Manuel

Vieira. That's how Romero Neto puts it

in court.

Well, this type of rejection wasn't

common. It's a great romance. I

recommend to you, Clájos de Lima

Barreto, which deals precisely with this.

However, Claros Anes was 16 years old and Olgas

Feli was no more than 18 years old. And

the type of seduction, you know, where

the reluctant boyfriend would often get

married to avoid punishment, the

crime of seduction required a victim

under 18 years old and, therefore, the case

was not justifiable.

Well, Alcir's family starts to

object, saying, "No, you don't have to marry

this girl,"

and so on. And he

finally capitulates

at some point, it seems in May of '49,

after so much accusation, and then,

more or less a year and a half

after learning of the beginning of the

relationship, he catches up and begins to withdraw.

Well, Algae is going to complain a lot, right, about the

prejudice she faced, the

discrimination she was treated with

by her family. She'll tell

the newspapers after the crime that whenever I

say, "I'm thinking clearly," I mean, "

I have good eyesight, right?" Because I was trying to get my

glasses here without them. It's

called cataract surgery.

She said that she had found her

fiercest enemy in her mother. She recounts a day when

she learned that Asi had fallen

ill, even though he had been ill for some time.

She was worried because she loved him

and went to visit him, but she wasn't allowed in; it was

raining. She stood at the door, she said:

"I stood at the gate of the

Vieira mansion and I wasn't received. I wasn't

received." She was very humiliated. Of course,

the inevitable unease began to

happen between the two families, between

the Vieiras, rich, well-positioned and

so on, and the Dantas

Bres over there and so on.

But nobody knew that this unease

between the groups, who occasionally

flirted with each other and so on, had led to a

meeting, some Vieiras had

taken money from a Vieira, but

something has nothing to do with that, but

internally she

began to develop an extraordinary hatred

for the aid, right? Welcome.

And she bought a

Water pistol, she practiced shooting. Nobody

knew that her heart, to use the

poet's expression, was a pot overflowing with

bitterness.

And all this overflows

when

Manuel proposes a

financial arrangement,

the father of the aid. She really, on

September 27, 1949, which is the day of the crime, the

casualty of members of the two families in

Dom Pedro's house,

At the train station, during

this encounter,

someone growls at the other and so on, and old

Manuel asks the delegate from Caxias to

arrange a kind of

meeting between the groups to see if it would bring

peace. A judge had already tried

this before.

And you know that requests from

millionaires are quickly fulfilled

by the police. That same

afternoon there was already a summons, a

summons to go to the

police station. Okay. I'm interrupting

here to welcome our president. That's

it.

Good morning.

Continuing. I'll continue

. But I'll give a brief

recap. We're talking about a

crime that happened in '49.

A young woman who was a clerk in a

notary's office, poor thing, began, but very

conservative from a moral and religious point of view

.

She was very conservative, right? She,

let's say,

begins a courtship with a very rich young man,

Sir Gonçalves Vieira, son of Manuel

Gonçalves Vieira, a local politician from Caxias

at that time,

and they fall in love, and so on, they

agree on marriage, and so on, and so on. Suddenly

the family starts to oppose her; she was

poor,

and at

a certain point, in

May 1949, he also starts to leave her, and she had become

pregnant, she had

an abortion based on

his advice and assistance, right?

She gets very angry. There's a bad feeling

between the families, and on

September 27, 1949, these families

casually meet members of their families at the

Dom Pedro train station.

And there, Manoel

Vieira, the boss, Asire's father, who was

preventing their marriage, didn't want

this marriage,

asks the delegate to hold a meeting

to discuss it, and the delegate summons

them. That's it. And Algeli, who had bought

a pistol for shooting practice, is

the last straw for her. She

receives a summons through the internet, goes

there. On the same day, the delegate

organizes things. Of course, when the

poor arrive, the rich are already in the

delegate's office waiting there. As

the indictment says, first the two enter,

the two brothers enter. She carried the

pistol in her purse,

and when her moment arrived, she

entered, went straight to the assistant, shot the

assistant, the bullet hit him

in the legs—another

mystery for us. But then they

tried to stop her, but it was an enraged finger on an

automatic weapon. She fired at the

assistant's father and brother-in-law, both the

father's son-in-law, and killed them both with

fatal shots. So, she was accused of a

triple homicide,

one attempted and two completed, in the police

chief's office. This

is the case. Now let's see the

media coverage of the case, which is

unique

because

the extraordinary repercussion cannot

be explained solely by the

female authorship of a homicide. At

the end of 1929,

Silvia Serafim Tibão,

who was, let's say, a pioneer in this,

killed in the newsroom the journalist who

publicly humiliated her; he was

Nelson Rodrigues' brother.

And then many women in that period

from the 40s to the 50s, Aracia Abelha, Azira Gonelli

Semanovsk, Elb Mascarinhas de Morais,

Zumira Galvão Bueno. And I'm only mentioning

middle-class women because,

well, the cases of poorer women

didn't receive as much attention, but

there were many homicides. Zumira

Galvão Bueno, by the way, has a

characteristic that some will know,

because Evandel Silva narrates it, which is

very curious. At that time,

Evandel Silva still lived in that house

in Alto da Boa Vista

and received a phone call from Dona Zumira,

married to Estélio Galvão Bueno, who was

a great lawyer. She received this

call, "I need to speak with

you." She shaved, went to her office,

and so on. Dona Zumira arrived. "

I'm here, Dr. Evandro, because Estélio

said that if I ever needed

a lawyer, I should look for you." Then

Evandro asked her,

"Madam, what can I do?"

I said, "I killed Estélio." That's how it was

. Well, a certain woman on

Ilha do Governador opted for gasoline and

matches. He didn't use a firearm. Some

of these women, you know, declared that they had

suffered from addiction and such.

And it was often proven, even though

patriarchal homes are somewhat

impenetrable, always

since Roman times.

But at that time, courts and penalists

affirmed that marital rape did not exist

.

And I say, in an old book of mine

called "Commented Criminal Decisions,"

I work and make an implacable,

relentless critique of a

1975 Court of Appeals decision, saying: "No, the husband does

not commit rape against the wife."

It's an exercise of a right, as

if the marital debt could be

acquired by force, settled. The term is

settled, resolved.

Settled.

Settled, okay? Settled by

force. Well,

the problem is this: Olga Suel

wasn't even married,

nor was she beaten by Auxio.

So, these ingrained convictions of hers

about sex, which are viscerally

conservative,

were contrary to the desires and

struggles of... Women who were seeking

liberation from the age-old

legal subjugation imposed upon them in the name of the transmission of

private property through inheritance and

other similar conveniences

. The year 1949, the year

Olga killed, is the year of the launch of *The

Second Sex*, published in Paris by

Galima.

A little over three lustrums later, a little

before three lustrums, we're in the

1960s, the pill is freeing women

from that fatality

that, let's say, disturbed the exercise of

sexual freedom,

right? That removed sexual freedom from the

model of canonical sexual licitness, which is

intercourse, intercourse, no, carnal

conjunction for

procreation.

The rest is illicit.

And well, a little more, 20 years later,

comes the report that

makes public a hitherto forbidden

female sexuality. It was something that

had to stay, the curtain here.

Female sexuality over there.

Unlike the women who were

killing abusive husbands. Sueli

killed because her husband gave up on the

conjugal investiture. How to understand The

sympathy

she aroused? Right? Was there an

influence from the disparity in

social class? Or was it admiration for the fearless,

deceived vestal virgin who redeems her

own honor through blood? Or the opposition to the powerful father-in-law

, right? It transformed things there. So it

was a Romeo and Juliet situation, right? Manuel

Monteéquio was preventing the love affairs, right?

Alcir Romeu, anyway,

take a look at the newspapers and you

'll be amazed, right? They reported

the crime, the trial, and the

Niterói court session,

recalling the indignation caused in her

by Manuel

Gonçalves Vieira's proposal to compensate her with a kind

of life he imposed on his son. I

forgot to mention that our sources

are the rebuttal and the rejoinder. We don't

have the original accusation and defense statements.

Carlos de Araújo Lima, right, who did

a great service by transcribing

several of the jury's arguments into two books,

two volumes that you should have, which

are a lesson in advocacy, those

trials.

He explained that it was a commercial radio station... But

I checked the fidelity of

Romero Neto's text in Romero Neto's book.

So, and since these are extensive rebuttals and counter-rebuttals,

and since they distill the material

that was addressed in the accusation and the defense,

I think we have good indicators.

Let's go. One newspaper page carried a

statement about something. They wanted to erase the

stain with money. On another page it

returned. Indecent proposal. Another

newspaper on the front page had the

headline: They wanted to buy my honor with

money. And in the caption above

her photo, the young Olga, in a moment of

hallucination, tried to kill the young man who

repudiated her after dishonoring her.

Only the photo of Alcir, the pivot of the tragedy.

A third newspaper published a page with

the headline: Human dignity is not a

commodity that is put up for sale. A

statement she gave saying, they are not

like those commodities that made

Manuel a millionaire.

In an interview, she stressed her revulsion

at having sought to repair

my misfortune with money, as if

human dignity were a commodity. One of those

commodities that They made Manuel Gonçalves

see a millionaire. At the same time, she

made a point of repeatedly emphasizing

that she wasn't sorry.

It's guilt when she meets ACI two months

later, who must have said to

her, like, "Did you see what you did?" She

retorted, "It was nothing, it was published

in the newspaper. A

peaceful preventive detention, right? For the

rest of his life."

But the newspapers begin to exploit the abysmal

inequality between the young clerk

and the millionaire's son, the cold, indifferent young man

whose father didn't approve of their

union. Beyond being a millionaire,

Manuel Gonçalves Vieira was called a

capitalist.

In what Brazilian newspaper today does a

reporter, an editor, write the essential

capitalist

instead of the laudatory entrepreneur? Where do

you find that kind of journalist

today?

It's true.

A newspaper promised its readers to open

a space to talk about

Manuel Gonçalves Vieira's immense fortune.

The millionaire, who declared he was against

his son's meeting with the clerk,

was moved to the center of the plot.

In the hearing to hear witnesses,

Olga Felix gave ample support. Under the title

Popular delirium, one newspaper wrote: "The

audience, silent during the session, once

this one ended, gave vent to its

contentment."

Olga Sueli, greeted with a standing ovation, descended the

courthouse stairs, followed by the public,

and went out into the street to await the arrival of the

accused. Everyone wanted to see and

congratulate Holgas.

This is a newspaper.

The same newspaper, a fortnight later,

reported: "Holgers has become the object of

admiration for all who see her, a

true heroine who, in defense of her

honor, etc."

Reporting on the letters of support she

received in prison from friends, colleagues, and

unknown women, another newspaper

observed: "This feeling of sympathy

from women surrounding Olga Sueli's drama is

growing. The

women's section of a political party

sent her a letter pledging its

full support.

This sympathy reverberated in the news

about the evidence gathered. Excuse me,

may I take off my jacket? Starting,

starting a sauna in the morning. No,

thank you, dear. Thank you.

Look at that.

Of course, because some testimonies

sought, the testimonies that Tenório

Cavalcante arranged,

sought to discredit the defendant in what

was then called sexual honesty and

which was only expelled from the Brazilian election

at the beginning of the 20th century.

Romero Neto will attribute to Tenório

Cavalcante

the listing of these witnesses about

whom I will speak when we work on

patriarchalism, machismo, and homophobia,

right?

Witnesses, including a

prostitute from Caxias, who said that Olga

Sueli was a colleague, without any data,

nobody believed her and so on, but even then..." Nothing

surprising, because

unscrupulous lawyers, unfortunately, exist,

as in other professions, there are many

unscrupulous people,

right? And fabricated witnesses are a

constant, right, in criminal courts.

The surprise comes from the courage with which

several newspapers accused the

artificiality of that evidence. One of them,

reporting on the hearing, stated that the

testimonies gave the impression of having

been deliberately prepared by

Algas Sueli's accusers. Another

bluntly stated the existence of

fabricated testimonies.

Where are they? Where are these

journalists who refuse to analyze what they

receive from the police or the

Public Prosecutor's Office and intend to exercise a

critical judgment on the accusatory evidence? That

is the great problem of

police news, which, since that

Ramírez incident in criminological thought,

the problem is that

television

doesn't do any critical examination.

Where are these journalists here?

Where did they hide so well?

Coverage of the trial session in

Niterói, which was announced as a

great spectacle. Finally, today the

trial will take place in the Jury Court.

Algaseli, author of one of the most

moving tragedies ever

recorded, like Shakespeare.

She is not the author of a crime,

the other also the author of one of the most

notorious tragedies, the other newspaper.

There was a suspicious exception in the

evening newspaper that had been supporting her and which, before the

trial, attacked the criminal who, in her

favor, invented a case of honor as the

motive for the crime, which is not true,

according to the evidence in the

records.

Well, it

fuels suspicion, especially since the

money that buys witnesses

also buys editorials, and sometimes

cheaper.

A photo of the audience that attended the

trial, published in the following week's magazine,

had the following

caption: "The audience was largely

female and, according to the investigations

we conducted for the magazine, most were rooting for

Olga."

The day after the trial, a newspaper

opened a page with the following headlines:

Delirium at the Niterói courthouse. There had

been a challenge, right? Acclaimed in

prison. Yes. After the acquittal,

Delegate Amil Richard fought with

tremendous force against

the detention center, prevented by great force. A

crowd deliberately cheered

the passionate criminal from Caxias. And upon

arriving at the prison, she entered to

enthusiastic cheers from the other inmates

who had followed the trial on the

radio. In the retelling of the crime in the

following week's magazine, this support

manifested itself in the presence of the one who

had stolen her honor and stubbornly refused to reclaim it

. Hugo happily drew his

revolver, etc.

How could the

verdict of the People's Court have been different? So

let's start now, let's work on

the late modernism of

forensic eloquence. The drunkard

next to the president, I know I won't

lack water here at the moment. I

'm sure of it,

folks. In a luminous text, a great

French historian, Jorge de B,

examining,

this one here I would be incapable, excuse me, the

man of the minority

doesn't accept

even more from the president of the council,

but you won't accept a

water, professor I

can't, I have to leave it to the

woman, aa more than the woman is the

president of the sectional council.

Well, in this text they analyzed the

documents From the 10th century, when

feudalism was being implemented in Europe.

And he observed that notarial documents

struggled

against the new form, because they were

new legal phenomena, right, the

establishment of feudalism. And that

notarial writing had difficulty

adapting. His phrase is brilliant.

When I read it, he says that those

structural economic transformations

were too recent, too

current to immediately impact the

ritual terms of legal writing, the

most rigid of all, the slowest to

lend itself to the expression of novelty.

Yes, yes. That's true. The form, even

before the written form, the

symbolic form, right? For example, the announcement

of a new work, right? Something that fascinated

Michelê when he came across it. The

person in the new works, he had to

throw a stone at the wall that was being

built on his land. He had to throw

that stone. If he didn't throw that

stone, a formality was lacking. He did

n't have an action, an announcement of a new work.

In Germanic law as well. The

raped woman had to go screaming through

three houses. That was a condition of

admissibility in today's terms. That's how it

got to the ordinances, Mr. President. In

the ordinances, the raped woman had to

go through three houses saying: "See what he

did to me, foan, which is the archaic form of so-and-so

." See what so-and-so did to me.

This is a possibility. And when this

enters the written record, there is also a

decision, there is a ruling from the House of

Appeals,

whose rulings have almost the force of law, eh,

that from 1692, at the end of the 17th century, which

had a formula when it granted bail

for damages, losses arising

from a lawsuit,

from a lost lawsuit, a, let's say,

financial reinforcement. Regarding the oath of slander, right?

In the order, he had to

state that he guaranteed loss and damage,

amendment, satisfaction, and costs.

Well, they would cancel the contract when the guarantor didn't say

the five words. Until 1692, a scene from the

house of supplication stated: "It is enough for the

guarantor to say that he will vouch for everything." It's a matter

of legal form, right? It's a locking shape, right?

And it froze too, right? To this day,

all scripture begins in the year of

grace of the birth of our Lord

Jesus Christ. Who still uses the

Julian calendar today? Who counts

the years from Caesar today? Do you know of any from the

19th century? Did they meet anyone in the 16th century

? There

is absolutely no doubt about that. But

we continue. It's as you say, the slowest one

to lend itself to the expression of novelty,

right? So it continues, right, na na

eh, like that's what they want. And civil law scholars

even have an aphorism, according to which the

essence of things comes from the form of the

thing.

So

this is a matter

that

is good to keep in the official record,

the writing continues what B did, he

could talk about today as well.

Because what clerk,

when drafting a will or

deed, wouldn't use the formula he learned

from his mentor at the notary's office,

you understand? It will compromise the

subject's will due to a formal defect.

So she keeps repeating that old saying. But what about

forensic oratory? Could it be that

legal oratory also

has this problem? Yes, it does. Does the

style of the forensic speaker maintain

compatibility with current literary style,

or does it also have roots in the

past?

So let's see. Some years after

Algelit's trial, Heleno Fragoso

wrote, drawing attention to the following:

"The Jury Court constitutes the last

bastion of a certain type of

forensic oratory that makes a sentimental appeal,

often with

exceptional skill.

When Heleno Fragoso mentions the

sentimental appeal, he is doing so unintentionally,

because he was, let's say, not a

specialist in literature, but he is

placing this within the pattern, the

romantic canon, because the great authors of

literature, there is no doubt about

this, for José Veríssimo, among the

distinctive traits of Romanticism would be

an idealistic sentimentality. Oto

Maria Carpô points out

sentimental elements in Romanticism.

And when Mário da Silva Brito discusses

Parnassianism, which succeeded

Romanticism especially in the field of poetry, he says that Parnassianism

had the function of giving discipline, balance, and harmony to literature

compromised by the sentimentalism of

the Romantics

. So this characteristic of

Romanticism, the intense recourse to

feelings, right, where

individualism reverberates, which is another mark." From

Romanticism, right, that's what interests us here

in the 1930s, the 1920s, we even know about it

before, right, because Bandeira's poem "Sapos" (Frogs)

is from 1918 and it even has the frog

that is the Parnassian frog, with only

rich rhymes and so on, but anyway, in the

1920s Modernism definitively arrived

in Brazilian literature, but

forensic eloquence is not

relevant here.

See, but perhaps it's not

wrong to say that Modernism is

such a broad name, a broad category that

can be better defined not by the new

goods shipped, but by the cargo

that was thrown overboard, among them the

sobbing sentimentalism of the

Romantics, right? A little bit like that. So,

let's go. In his most referenced work,

Antônio Cândido, the great Antônio Cândido, a

work, incidentally, that was written and

completed in the year of the trial, in 1951,

he mentions the pathetic and the

mawkish, which mark a large part of the

Romantic convention,

and deals directly with...

Romantic eloquence, pompous, imaginative, and drunk with

sonority.

In this book, he stated that even

today, he's writing in '51, even

today conventional and celebratory discourse has a romantic character

.

This prolongation of Romanticism, already

perceived by Veríssimo,

would not be an innocence, a belated resurgence

of Baroque marks that Carlos Nejer,

also in his history of

Brazilian literature, attributes to the bachelor's degree in

law with the famous lawyers and the

legal scholars who thus made their name.

This continued until the fall of Getúlio

Vargas, in '54. So, authors

of literature also

affirm in no uncertain terms that

Romanticism continued while

Modernism was established in literature,

forensic eloquence remained

romantic.

And he says, while Vieira, I even

write here, while Vieira was

satirized in the Anthropophagic Manifesto

of '22, many forensic orations proclaimed, I will

not ask, but

protest and argue, because this

is the The license and freedom that one has who

asks for no favor but justice, from the sermon

for the good success of Portugal's arms

against Holland. But

Vieira was being mocked

by the modernists, and we here

continued.

But there is also the

romantic backbone, and to this baroque rib we must

also add a

floating rib that arises when a

new knowledge emerges from the case, which

is medico-legal knowledge.

Then the forensic discourse can take on

naturalistic, scientistic tones

when the subject delves into

forensic medicine. Well, two decades after the

trial, Evand Silva and Romero Neto

met again

in Efige, at the inauguration of

Romero Neto's bust in the Hall of

Lost Steps. In the speech that Evand Silva

gives, what does he say

about Romero Neto? As an orator, he still

retained the ardor and a little of the

mise-en-scène of our ancestors.

Romero Neto represented a phase in the

transition between the flamboyant

and pompous eloquence of an Alberto de Carvalho and the

simple and direct oratory. In our

time, any

unenthusiastic graduate student wishing to

verify this hypothesis will have to

open three books, all written in the

third quarter of the 19th century:

Jungueira Freire's *Elements of National Rhetoric*,

Canon Fernandes Pinheiro's *Rhetoric and Poetry Handouts*, and

Costa Honorado's *Synopsis of Eloquence and Poetics*.

Although they don't evoke the classics—

Cicero, Aristotle,

Quintilian—they work with modern thinkers

and write at the height of

Romanticism. Therefore, they criticize

these excesses, but also the Romantic canon.

It is through these manuals that

we can critique this

discourse.

They still work with the discourse within that

division that comes from antiquity, which

you know:

the proem, the exordium, which has those

classic purposes of attracting attention,

of captivating,

then the narration, also called the

proposition, which is when the case is presented

. Then the proof, which can be

called... Confirmation when she is

attesting to the narration or refutation when

she is denying the narration. And

finally, the peroration. They work

with this structure which, even today, I

think is the structure worked on there in

the concern.

There's something curious. One of them,

Freire, says the following in

his book, on page 19 of the elements of

rhetoric: contemporary orators in

our tribune excessively reject the

use of exordia. They are convinced

that only in this way will they be considered

romantic.

Through this, we learn that the

romantic orator did not like exordia very much

. And our orators

here too, although they are working with the

exordium of the reply and the rejoinder, which

would certainly be greater, but they really

don't have practically any exodium, which is a

trait of romantic oratory.

The concern with

mawkish sentimentality is quickly noted

by Canon Fernandes Pinheiro, quite the

opposite of the poet Fernando Pessoa;

the orator should never feign a motion he does

not possess. Here I'm playing with

that poetics of Fernando Pessoa. The

poet is a A pretender. He pretends so

completely that he even feigns the

pain, the pain that Vera feels. On the

contrary, the lawyer, unlike

the poet Fernando Pessoa, the canon,

should never pretend. But it is curious

because, according to him, the coldness of the speaker

will reveal little conviction in what he says.

And despite the requirement of authenticity

in emotion, for him the objective of the

narration would be to awaken emotion in the

soul of the listener,

which ends up producing true

or false emotion.

But he says that before the

toned collegial body, the speaker should not resort to the

pathetic and the commonplace, a rule that

loosens before the Jury Court.

They speak of verbosity and confusion, of

dramatic means

taught by Fernandes Pinheiro, in the

sense that the forensic speaker must

perfectly know the

famous cases of all countries, was followed

to the letter by Romero Neto, in the case we are

studying, who in his rejoinder mentioned

four famous cases, two French,

Madame Caioló and Madame Palmier, one

Brazilian, Silvia Serafim,

and one Italian, Ginonzarri.

How many mentions would we find in the

initial defense, of which we do not have a

transcript?

Also for Costa Honorato, the

forensic orator cannot give in to the

fervor of passions, nor to flights

of fancy, avoiding

useless verbosity, a style full of strange

affectation resulting from the exaggerated use

of rhetorical tropes, particularly

metaphor.

A divergence between Fernandes Pinheiro

and Costa Honorato arises regarding

humor; while the former admits the

use of witticisms and epigrams,

especially in young orators, the

latter recommends

the argument that the lawyer's job

is to convince judges, not to make

listeners laugh.

However, there is unanimity on the high

temperatures

of the peroration. At this moment, the orator

must fully embrace the pathetic,

making use of the most ardent expressions,

the most imposing affections, the

most despotic passions.

It is the ending that moves the spectator. And

the orator follows the cunning of the musician. The

last notes decide the success of the whole thing. The

piece.

The speeches of our colleagues in 1951

and observing these traits in them. Well, the

prosecutor Ren Desta's rebuttal was sober,

lasting 5 minutes, but he did

n't lack an

enchanting ease in speaking about the

defense.

Well, Evandlin Lins de Silva was

undoubtedly one of the lawyers who promoted the

modernization of oratory before the jury,

and the signs of this are in his rebuttal.

The guiding thread of his speech sought to

demonstrate that it was not a

crime of passion but a cold

revenge planned by the Dantas family.

But he uses the expression "Strangers on a Train," the

title of a film from the same year by

Hitchcock, the still-English film by

Hitchcock. And when he talks about

family feuds, do you think he brings up the Horatii

Coriacius? No. He takes a 1949 book

by a senior man named Costa Pinto, "

Family Feuds in Brazil." I even picked up the

book to see. It's only from the

colonial period, but it's from Brazil.

It's only from Brazil.

So, of course, it's the contemporary

claiming some space in the courtroom. In a

jury where only historical accounts had the

legitimacy to enter the romantic perspective,

as a proponent of what he professed

in his rebuttal, he asks for

a conviction, reminding the jury that the

accused had a brother who

was also accused. They need re-education.

Re-education that they will achieve through

punishment.

Evandro Silva's intellectualism

would make him an abolitionist

of prison, right? He repeatedly

proclaimed and recognized the process

of intellectual decline that prison

produces in its inhabitants. And he fought

for this in his maturation. Of course,

this is a young Evandro, perhaps he

was still reading too much,

and he was, because he cites where

he cites, but he will mature. And

furthermore, let's recognize, a

lawyer is a representative of a party

to whom he owes loyalty. So it was the

late Manuel Vieira who believed in

education through prison, not his

lawyer, but he was speaking for those he

represented.

He rarely resorts to tropes. He is

rhetorical and, when searching, doesn't

shy away from colloquial words instead

of employing erudite terms. When he

criticizes the defense, the simultaneous handling of

three defensive theses—legitimate

defense of honor, moral coercion,

resistance, social coercion, and the culpable nature of

the two consummated homicides—

he mentions a salad of

criminal law delicacies being

served to the jurors. Who knows if,

with so many such tricks, it won't be possible

to find a solution?

Nothing insincere, nothing fancy, nothing fancy,

and a fishing trip

in a blue bay, because when he's

arguing, the bay was blue. Perhaps in the

São Francisco River, since it was in

Niterói, right? The contemporary, the current.

Ah, modernism wants to be conversing

with the present, with its

historical dilemmas, which, being the president's,

are no less historical.

Forget the exploits of Ulysses.

Perhaps Evando realized how

difficult it would be to condemn the book, right?

At a certain point, he vents.

They managed to get the defendants... Does this have a certain sympathy in

some circles of poorly informed public opinion

?

One indicator that can help us lies

in the constant adherence of the discourse to the

evidence presented, which certainly wouldn't be

a romantic trait, but a

modern one, right? This flaw can

materialize in two ways: by

simple mention, which is what I say

when I quote, as the

witness so-and-so said, he said, as

the report said, this happened in this

way; or by

verbal reference, as the

witness said, he was in

the ferry queue when he noticed a

person, I'm reading what the

witness said, or as the report said, the

cause of the injuries was asphyxiation. I

'm reading, I'm presenting the evidence, I

'm not just mentioning the evidence.

Of course, the verbal citation method gains

credibility, but it hinders the

fluency of the discourse. It's a weight that the

lawyer has to check, but it

obliges an epic, objectified narration

and not a lyrical, subjectified narration,

right? This can compensate for the damages to the

fluency of the appeal. Because you gain

credibility when you're presenting

evidence.

If we admit that the modernization of

Brazilian judicial discourse has, as

one of its indicators, the constant adherence to the evidence in the case files,

we can

identify its presence

comparatively between Evandro Silva,

Getúlio de Moura, and Romero Neto. Flores da

Cunha did not, because he became aware

of the case files during the session, as he

readily confesses.

Well, regarding the citation of

authors, we find a

relative balance, right? Evandro cited

seven, Getúlio de Moura 10, and Romero nine.

Authors in general,

Pedro Vergara, who will be for the defense,

Ferre, and Nelson Gria,

but an abysmal difference arises in the

adherence to the evidence in the case files in the

strong way of citing verbatims. Evandro Silva

cited the evidence in the case files verbatim 30

times compared to none by Getúlio de Moura,

who remained simple in his mere

mention, and twice by Romero Neto, who also

resorted to simple mention on other occasions.

The narration, and particularly the

confirmatory or contradictory evidence of the

narration. The discourse, which gives more

space to the full content of statements,

documents, and expert opinions than to their

rhetorical representations, expresses a

realistic yearning.

This is not yet modernism; just look at

how Rui Barbosa handles the evidence, but it is

negating romanticism. The adherence to evidence is

a negation of romanticism.

Getúlio de Moura's exquisite defense

does not entirely abandon the old school.

Here we have one, there one is disregarded, like

a sucked orange. Like

Casanova de Caxias.

The

comparison between the

social sensitivity of the jury and the keen ear of an

Indian that he makes would have been made by

a Gonçalves Dias lawyer.

Built from the

contagious sympathy that Olga Senoria had aroused.

Alongside the sentences of the

robed judges, he explained to the jury, who

live in their ivory towers. We have the

jury's decisions, which must be in

perfect consonance with the average opinion

of society,

since the jury, constituted by legitimate

representatives of the collective conscience of

society, this district is to judge

according to the norms of society, so as

not to disappoint it. On a

dozen occasions, Getúlio emphasized the

subordination of the People's Court to the

sympathies of the people. A very appropriate thesis

for that case, however terrible. For

many others,

Getúlio constructed the most functional

argument for that session. Could the

people's court contradict

popular aspirations?

Romero Neto's rebuttal has all the

rhetorical ingredients of a

consummate master in the art of advocacy.

But without exaggeration or effervescence,

the marks of romanticism are clearly there. From the outset,

Romero addresses the

jurors permanently in the second person plural, a

device that Evand Lin only used in his

speech.

When referring to certain forged evidence intended

to undermine the honesty of Algas

Sueli, which we will discuss in the

following section, he stated that it had been

produced by the lawyer Tenório

Cavalcante, whom he called Lord of

Barço and Cuutelo of the city of Caxias,

highlighting this power to already compromise

investigations. Right, and

investigations carried out in Caxias.

The metaphors follow one another, it's a profusion

of metaphors. Truth is like a diamond

that despairs and demoralizes anyone who

tries to reproduce it artificially.

Truth is like an environment that resists

water, that withstands fire. The

carcinogenic properties were

unknown at that time.

An anaphora couldn't be missing.

For those who have forgotten, anaphora is the

repetition of the same word at the beginning of a

sentence: "

had to give air," "gave her her love," "gave

her her trust," "gave her her

virginity," "gave them"—there are three more: "gave them."

That's an anaphora. Ah, well, uh, and of course

the peroration was "poor girl," "

inspired burin," "the cross," etc. And so there's

the challenge for one of you

to study the

criminal forensic oratory of the jury when it gets rid

of romanticism.

We enter into patriarchalism, machismo, and

homophobia

to see if I, finally, can do

this in 10 Minutes.

Well, we can affirm that the

penal systems of the Christian West are born

phallocentric and homophobic,

because the criminalization of sexuality

by canon law was a

terrible program, right, with the consecration of only one

way, right, of

licit sexual intercourse, which is carnal conjunction. For

those who haven't studied sexual crimes,

carnal conjunction means daddy and

mommy. Intramarital carnal conjunction

between married couples, I can say it's

procreative,

only to make a little child.

The rest, including pleasure, has a

taste of illicit residue.

This was the model, right, that was

spread, that killed many people,

right, at the stake, our first one here at the

tip of a cannon, right, in Maranhão.

Anyway, that's it.

Well, modernity also consummates the

domestication of women's labor,

which in the future will surprise

working-class women with double shifts

without double pay.

The conditions were in place for the

patriarchal bourgeois family model and its networks

of dependence and domination, right, which would

also discipline the Affections. I

bring here a passage from Pierre

Bourdieu, who dealt with this subject and

which, for me, is a seminal passage that

I transcribe for you here. If the

sexual relationship shows itself as a

social relationship of domination, it is

because it is constructed through the

principle of fundamental division between the

active masculine and the passive feminine.

And because this principle creates, organizes,

expresses, and directs desire—

desire as a desire for possession, as

eroticized domination, and feminine desire

as a desire for masculine domination, as

eroticized subordination, or even,

ultimately, as

eroticized recognition of domination.

No woman participated in the

police investigation, the instruction and debate in the

criminal action, the jury trials, and the appeals

to the Court of Justice. The

lawyers, prosecutors, judges, jurors

, and justices are all men. So much

masculinity speaks for itself, but

there is a provocative ambiguity in the accused

.

When she tried to kill whoever

made her unhappy, the country was

modernizing.

Women's suffrage was not yet two

decades old, and the consolidation of

labor elections had not yet completed one.

Many In that context, women sought to

emancipate themselves from the

patriarchal bourgeois family model, or at

least to reduce the level of oppression

imposed by it, which rendered

married women indigent

legal positions and single women in a state of

perpetual transience, a

constant waiting period. Many women, despite

all the difficulties, forged

escape routes, some, like Vim, even killing their

husbands, and routes of insurgency.

The fact that Algas Sueli had a job

would speak in favor of libertarian projects.

However, her moral conscience was

radically committed to the

patriarchal bourgeois family model. In the name of

this model, she sought as her destiny

passive, eroticized subordination and

violently rebelled against an

unwanted freedom. Perhaps this is what

saved her, because this model

ideologically predominated in

society, not just in the

dominant class.

The axiological aspect in which

public opinion moved, and which certainly also

prevailed among jurors, had its

lower limit in the concept of an

honest woman. A concept that was only expelled from

Brazilian legislation at the beginning of the 20th

century. XX.

Under the predominance of the tropicalized Itorian statute

, one need only listen to this skillful

Getúlio de Moura. The jury will have to judge

according to the norms of society.

We here In Brazil, we still demand

sacred ties. from marriage to the

union of the sexes. We require

families to be legally constituted. Hence the

nobility and legitimacy of

Olga Suel's aspiration. She wanted the marriage and she had a

right to it.

I was entitled to it.

An

arbitrary exercise of one's own reasoning

suddenly gives rise to a direct shot

against Silva, right? He was entitled to it,

but the sources

from which it paradoxically stemmed—an

advanced, acquittal solution—are quite evident. The presence

of moral arguments, and I'll go

further, as many authors mention

during jury trials, there was

a theme in this jury trial proving a clandestine act of a

moral nature that seemed secondary and

unimportant, but in reality was

central and decisive. It was about the

sexual honesty of something happy. The

careful approach the lawyers

take to it reveals its importance. Even though

three homicides were being tried—

one attempted, two completed—

it suggests that acquittal or conviction

could result from the

defendant's sexual honesty or dishonesty. The

private prosecutor, Evand Silva, was shrewd and

elegant. Through his shrewdness, he was

convinced that firing at someone who had

earned him so much sympathy and understanding

was risking seeing the projectile

backfire.

Only Augas there killed two and almost killed

one, but she managed to win the

coveted role of victim. At that

time, the victim had not yet

re-entered the criminal scene. The victim

was removed from the crime scene on two separate

occasions. since the 11th, 14th, and 15th centuries, there was the

historical issue of public punishment.

As public punishment was being

constructed, the victim

ended up losing even forgiveness and the right to

act, the initiative, and forgiveness. It

wasn't just her last name; the father figure, the asylum,

the duel—things like that were losing ground

too, right? But no one has been so

robbed.

It is in this sense that we speak of the confiscation

of conflict. The victim lost her power; she

no longer manages her conflict, which is now

managed by a representative of the

king. The offense wasn't directed at her anymore, no.

No, the offense was the law. The

very concept of an infraction is being created

and worked on. And then in

criminal law theory, in the mid-

19th century, it is definitively kicked in the

backside when

the concept of legal good is invented. Because until

then, liberal thought

considered the legal objectivity

of the crime to be the

subjective right of the victim.

My right to sexual integrity

was violated when Dr. Rafael

Fagundes stabbed me here in the

arm. But no, from the perspective of

legal good, no, it's not the abstract legal good of

health, it's not my arm.

Then the victim returned at the end, in the

second half of the 20th century, even

transforming into the greatest propagandist of the

penal system, which is why she came to

occupy, became an expert in

opinion. The person who has been criminalized is

certainly the one who is least able to avoid

criminalization. He has already proven that he doesn't

know how to avoid criminalization, and he becomes the

victim, playing the authority figure. But it comes back to haunt us through the

post-traumatic stress syndrome

created by wars.

This nozological category

creates, let's say, a psychiatric space

for the victim, and thus the victim who had been

expelled returns in this

perspective.

This didn't exist in 1950; there was

simply the victim, but she

gained the role of victim,

and those defamatory pieces of evidence that would

n't stand in the trial were self-

sabotaging. All he allowed himself was

a brief outburst. Imagine him

there in the middle of the night, you know? Making the

second judgment. Then he said: "At the

root of all that was the alleged

deflowering of a woman who claims to be

26 years old and is actually much older.

All

the great lawyer allowed himself was to doubt the

most famous deflowering in the country and

increase the age of the deflowered woman. That

was all that this lawyer, an elegant person

, wasn't he? I, Getúlio de Moura,

also shrewd while seeking to convince the

jury that his duty was to heed the voice

of the people, proceeded to extol the

moral qualities of the defendant. Oh, glacier, a girl with very poor

material resources, but rich in

moral beauty, dedicated to her family and

work, a modest girl, a member of a

religious congregation, an example of

personal dignity. And here's the fatal shot:

by day in the registry office and by night embroidering the

trousseau.

Contrary to Sir, the rich and unscrupulous young man

, the libertine Don Juan de

Aldeia, who was always a vagabond, was the one who,

after seducing Sueli,

frequenting her house, deflowered her,

impregnated her, He promoted her

abortion. With the child removed, the

bride's womb abandons her

miserably.

Having drawn the two profiles, the lawyer

arrives at the core of the issue by proving a

clandestine affair. Note that Sueli was not an

easy girl. She didn't surrender

to herself under the impulse of an

incurable libido. No. During their years of

courtship and engagement, Sir resisted seduction.

Then, little by little,

insidiously, he broke down her

moral resistance, etc., etc.,

winning her heart, frequenting her

house, enveloping her elderly mother in a

web of affection to the point of calling her "

mother-god,"

but the slow and inexorable destruction of the

moral resistance of a poor girl. It

fell to Romero Neto to

concretely dismantle the defamatory evidence that

aimed to disturb the sexual honesty of the

couple.

The first of these was the distorted version

of a fact. She had dated a

married man, they dated for a little over a month. When

she found out he was married, she broke up

immediately. This was a

true fact. All in In its entirety. Without

the other three.

The witness, I already mentioned one, a

prostitute I didn't say, she's my

colleague, she makes a living there, nobody

believed her. But they also got a

witness named

Aristotle, something like that. No, I saw

her leave the bar, Rua dos

Invalidos, 35,

suspicious bar and so on. That was

possible because the defense was there,

a family lived at Rua dos Invalidos 35.

So a certificate came out, that also

ended up being the case. And there was also what would be

a letter from the waiters at Brama. At that

Brama bar, a year and a

half before, two years before,

a meeting would have taken place in which the Vieiras

would have paid something to the Dantas.

What will Romero N do? What fault is it of

his misfortune to be exploited by a third party?

But Romero Neto, one of the great points

of this is the rebuttal, the counter-rebuttal of

Romero Neto, is to dismantle this letter. Look

how well the waiters at Brama write.

Him dismantling this letter is worth

reading, whether in Araújo's book

, Carlos Araújo Lima, Whether in

Romero Mento's own book on Criminal Defenses.

Well, sexual honesty was

intensely thematized.

And his thesis, of course, the defense thesis was

built on ideologically

macho ground and such, it would hardly be

defeated in an equally

macho court. And since machismo goes hand in hand

with homophobia, it was inevitable

to clarify Professor Valdomiro's situation. Who

is Professor Valdomiro? He was

apparently

an associate of the Vieiras, but one who was

protected, someone very vulnerable. The

defense says: "No, he was hidden

on purpose."

He was a regular customer, a very

close man, the Vieiras, he was always there, he

would have participated in that meeting that the

waiters at Brahma described and so on." Romero

Neto

was

accurate and restrained.

Professor Valdemiro is a regular customer of the

Vieira family, an

intimate friend of the late Manuel Vieira, a

frequent visitor to his house.

And there, as Getúlio de Moura explicitly stated

, Professor Valdomiro maintained

ambiguous, yet intimate, relations with

Manuel Vieira.

He lived for several years at Vieira's expense, an

abnormal individual who delighted in

such suspicious and compromising company.

Old Manuel Vieira maintained his friend Valdomiro at his own

expense at the Hotel Rio Branco.

The two were always

together,

they were bed and table companions.

So serious and immoral were these relations

that witnesses did not want to

lift the veil that covered

Manuel Vieira's preferences and manners

in his intimate relationship with

Valdomiro.

Mr. President, after that

he apologizes for his restraint.

Unfortunately, the respect due to the jury and

the ladies... Present in this room, and the

memory of a dead man, impose

silence upon us. So, thanks to

Etúlio de Moura's description, no one will have realized

that the father who forbade his son's love

also lived a forbidden love. 10-

minute pause.

Professor,

professor, if you'll allow me, I'd like to

quickly pass the word to the president, just because I think Ana has her

credentials presentation today. I wanted to

pass the word, Ana, just

reminding you, this class today is

part of the case study module

of our postgraduate course

in criminal law, which is the

result of an agreement between the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association) and CPED (Center for Studies and Research in Criminal Law),

and which we are now re-launching for the

fourth class, and Professor Nilo

is the academic coordinator, and I,

Rafael Fagundes, and Jorge Flores are the

executive coordinators. I hope,

I'm sure, that once again we will

count on your support for this

re-launch.

Absolutely, dear Rafa. I

wanted to say, professor, that every time you

come here, you give a

gift. This is very special for all of us.

What a wonderful class. I just hope I can

watch them all, right? What a

wonderful class, what a spectacular presentation,

and I hope it's being recorded

so we can take this

presentation to the interior of the state, to all

the lawyers, because this is a

fantastic historical class. And I wanted to say

to the professor, who was a great president

of our institution, who represents the

best of the legal profession in Brazil, that if we

had more Nilo Batistas,

especially in the courts, we would

be in a truly desirable country,

a country that makes us proud.

Nilo Batista, without a doubt, is a

prince of the legal profession,

an example for all of us. And I wanted to

express here, on behalf of the lawyers of the

entire state, Professor, how you

illuminate the younger generation, how you

illuminate us all, and we are all

followers of Nilo Batista here, not only in

this state, but in this country. I am

very proud to know you and to be able to

enjoy a few minutes of your speech, as

we were all honored to do here today.

Professor, receive our gratitude,

affection, and all possible tributes

to a great man. Tribune, to a great

lawyer. Thank you very much, professor.

[Applause]

Let's call 10 minutes.

Thank you for the honor of your presence.