Deciding Strategically: Lessons From a Brazilian Supreme Court Decision

Abstract

Judges, just like “ordinary people,” are subject to routine incentives; i.e. according to Benjamin Barton, they are driven by the same combination of incentives, experiences, and cognitive biases that drive the rest of us. This includes the justices of the Supreme Court. Therefore, justices presumably strive to reduce the difficulty, the sameness and the amount of legal workload. In order to achieve that end, they adopt strategic postures, which means that justices take into account not only the best legal solution of the case, but the solution that also best serves their particular interests. That is, they choose the course of action that best serves their medium- and long-term purposes.

Full text

DecidingStrategically:LessonsFromaBrazilianSupreme
CourtDecision
8 MAR 2016 | IGOR DE LAZARI, ANTONIO G. SEPULVEDA AND HENRIQUE RANGEL
POSTED IN: COURTS AND PROCEDURE
Judges,justlike“ordinarypeople,”aresubjecttoroutineincentives;
i.e.accordingtoBenjaminBarton,theyaredrivenbythesame
combinationofincentives,experiences,andcognitivebiasesthat
drivetherestofus.ThisincludesthejusticesoftheSupremeCourt.
Therefore,justicespresumablystrivetoreducethedifficulty,the
samenessandtheamountoflegalworkload.Inordertoachievethat
end,theyadoptstrategicpostures,whichmeansthatjusticestakeinto
accountnotonlythebestlegalsolutionofthecase,butthesolution
thatalsobestservestheirparticularinterests.Thatis,theychoosethe
courseofactionthatbestservestheirmediumandlongterm
L E G A L A N A L Y S I S A N D C O M M E N T A R Y F R O M J U S T I A

purposes.
IntherecentjudgmentofHabeasCorpusnº126.292(InreDantas),
theBrazilianSupremeCourt(STF)ruledthatcriminalsentencesmay
beenforcedafterachallengeableappellatecourtdecision,fromwhich
convicteddefendantsarenomorepresumedinnocentandmaybe
immediatelyarrested.Nevertheless,accordingtomost
commentators,theCourt’snonunanimousrulingdepartsfromthe
mostappropriateinterpretationofarticle5,sectionLVII,ofthe
BrazilianConstitution.Theprovisionestablishesthatnooneshallbe
consideredguiltybeforetheissuingofafinalandunappealable
penalsentence.Itisdefianttointerprettheconstitutionalclauseno
oneshallbeconsideredguiltyuntilafinalandunappealable
sentenceasuntilaconvictionbyanappellatecourt.Thisinterpretive
solutiondoubtlessgoesmuchbeyondits“possibleliteralmeaning.”
ThisdecisionhasalsoexplicitlyoverruledtheCourt’s2009decision
inHabeasCorpusnº84078(InreVitor).InVitor,theSTFruledbya
broadmajoritythatimprisonmentbeforeafinalandunappealable
penalsentencemayonlybeadmittedasapreventivedetentionand
anticipationofacriminalsentenceexecution,inadditiontobeing
incompatiblewiththeConstitution,couldonlybejustifiedinthe
nameofconvenienceofjudges—andnotinthenameofcriminal
proceedings.Ithasalsostatedthatthesocalled“defensivecaselaw”,
designedtoreducethenumberofappealstohighercourts,reduces
thescopeorevensuppressesconstitutionalguarantees.
ManyscholarscriticizedDantasdecision,claimingthatthe
Constitutionshouldhaveprevailed,Brazilisgoingagainsthistory,
theoverrulingwasaresoundinghistoricalmistakeandcitizensare

payingforjudicialdelays.Inanofficialstatement,theBrazilianbar
association(OrdemdosAdvogadosdoBrasil)reaffirmeditshistoric
positionofdefendingindividualrightsandagainstimpunity,inthe
sensethattheconstitutionalprincipleofthepresumptionof
innocencedoesnotallowtheimprisonmentaslongasthereisa
righttoappeal.TheseopinionsandthedissentofJustices
Lewandowski,C.J.,deMello,WeberandFariasMello,affirmingthe
Court’spriordecisioninVitor,areverymuchthesame.
Nottomentiontheunpredictablesystemiceffectsthatthedecision
mayhaveonlowercourts’caselaw,sinceitisnotabindingdecision:
statutesoflimitationappliedtoexecutionsentences,criminal
lawsuitsfiledbeforetheSTF—sinceitiswithinitscompetenceto
institutelegalproceedingantrialofmajorauthoritiesincommon
criminaloffenses—andcompensationforwrongfulconviction.
UnderVitor,aprecedentmanyconsideredtobethecontrolling
precedent,Dantasshouldhavebeenaneasycase,notablybecause
boththeCongressExplanatoryMemorandaandthePresidential
IssuingStatementfora2011reformintheCriminalProcedureAct
(Dec.Leinº3.689of1941)affirmedthatanyimprisonmentbeforea
finalandunappealablepenalsentencemayonlybeadmittedasa
preventivedetention.Therefore,Dantascontravenednotonly
importantclausesoftheConstitution,butalsotheCourt’sowncase
lawandtheotherBranches’officialstatutoryandconstitutional
interpretations.
TouseatermcoinedbyUniversityofChicagophilosopherBrian
Leiter,theCourtthusactedasasuperlegislaturei.e.ithasnotsimply
decidedonthebasisoflegallybindingstandards.Notably,the

holdingseemstobebasedongoodstrategicreasons,notwithstanding
thecostofimportantindividualrightsanddiversionfromprecedent.
Permittingtheexecutionofacriminalsentenceafterthedecisionof
anappellatecourtencouragesthereductionofappeals,or,according
toJusticeRobertoBarroso,discouragestheprocrastinationof
appeals,giventhesmallchancesofareversalofalowercourt’s
decision.
In2015,theSTFheardmorethan6,000writsofhabeascorpus—not
includingpetitionsforenbancrehearing—anddeniedthemin92
percentofthecases.ItisnoteworthythattheSTFdoesnothavea
proceduralfilterakintocertiorari:allappealsarealmost
automaticallyincludedinitsyearlydocket.
Furthermore,thedecisionservestobetterdefinetheissuestobetried
bytheBrazilianSupremeCourt,whichprogressivelyintendsto
abstainfromitscourdecassationassignmentstofocusprimarilyon
itsroleasguardianoftheConstitution.Itmayservealsoasan
incentiveforlegislativediscussions,since,withoutthepriordecision
oftheSupremeCourt,Congresswouldbeunlikelytoapprovea
constitutionalamendmentthatpromotesthiskindofchangeinthe
Constitution,particularlyforthepurposeofabolishing—ratherthan
simplynarrowing—afundamentalguarantee(article60,paragraph
4º,sectionIV,oftheBrazilianConstitution).
Therewas,moreover,nootherreasontochangethepreviouscaselaw
oftheBrazilianSupremeCourt:therewerenosocietalchanges,no
changesinthecaselawoflowercourts,norecentmodificationof
criminalprocedure.Norwasthereaformalchangeinthe
constitutionaltext.Thepossibilitythatamerechangeinthe

compositionoftheCourtisthesolecausefortherecent
jurisprudentialshiftdespisesextremelyimportantaspectsof
institutionalorder:sixnewJusticesarenowsittingontheBench,but
asJusticeRobertsoftheU.S.SupremeCourtoncesaidduringhis
Senateconfirmationhearings,youalwayshavetotakeintoaccount
thesettledexpectationsthathavegrownuparoundtheprior
precedent.
Thedecisionmayalreadybeconsideredoneofthebiggestgaffesof
theSTF:itisundoubtedlystrategic,butacostbenefitanalysiswould
revealthatithasdisastrousconsequences.
POSTED IN: COURTS AND PROCEDURE, INTERNATIONAL LAW
TAGS: BRAZIL
IGOR DE LAZARI
IgorDeLazariisaGraduateStudentattheFederalUniversityofRiode
Janeiro,ResearcherattheTheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutional
BehaviorLabandLawClerkattheRegionalFederalCourtinRiodeJaneiro.
ANTONIO G. SEPULVEDA
AntonioSepulvedaisProfessorofLawattheGetulioVargasFoundation
(FGV)andattheFluminenseFederalUniversity.Heisaresearcheratthe
TheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutionalBehaviorLabanda
BrazilianInternalRevenueServiceofficer.
HENRIQUE RANGEL
HenriqueRangelisaGraduateStudentattheFederalUniversityofRiode
Janeiro,ResearcherattheTheoreticalandAnalyticalStudiesonInstitutional
BehaviorLabandLawClerkattheRegionalLaborCourtinRiodeJaneiro.

TheopinionsexpressedinVerdictarethoseoftheindividualcolumnistsanddonot
representtheopinionsofJustia.
©2017Justia