The defense team abandoned the courtroom, preventing any verdict
Em 2021, a morte de Henry Borel, uma criança, chocou o Brasil e levou à acusação do ex-vereador Dr. Jairinho. Cinco anos depois, quando sete cidadãos sorteados finalmente se reuniram para julgar sua culpa, os advogados de defesa abandonaram o tribunal — e com eles, a possibilidade de um veredicto. A juíza, recusando aceitar o gesto como legítimo, ordenou investigação ética contra os advogados e adiou o julgamento para data a ser marcada, lembrando que a justiça, por mais que se tente interromper, não se encerra com uma saída de sala.
- No momento em que o júri estava prestes a deliberar, os advogados de Jairinho abandonaram o plenário, alegando acesso insuficiente às provas — e paralisaram completamente o processo.
- A juíza Elizabeth Machado Louro rejeitou todos os pedidos da defesa, incluindo a suspensão do julgamento e a separação do caso do de Monique Medeiros, codefendente.
- Sem equipe de defesa presente, o tribunal esvaziou-se e o júri — sete cidadãos convocados para decidir — foi dispensado sem jamais ter votado.
- A juíza classificou o abandono como conduta premeditada, não como reação espontânea a falhas processuais, e ordenou que os advogados arquem com os custos da sessão frustrada.
- A OAB foi acionada para investigar o comportamento dos defensores, e um novo júri será designado em data ainda indefinida — enquanto a família de Henry aguarda.
O julgamento do ex-vereador Dr. Jairinho pela morte de Henry Borel, ocorrida em 2021, foi suspenso abruptamente na segunda-feira quando seus advogados, Zanone Júnior e Fabiano Lopes, deixaram o tribunal durante a sessão. O júri popular, composto por sete cidadãos sorteados, nunca chegou a deliberar.
A defesa alegou não ter tido acesso completo às provas e afirmou que, nessas condições, um julgamento justo seria impossível. Os advogados também pediram a separação do caso de Jairinho do de Monique Medeiros, outra ré no processo. A juíza Elizabeth Machado Louro negou ambos os pedidos, afirmando que o processo havia sido amplamente analisado e que as provas estavam acessíveis à defesa.
Sem os advogados presentes, a sessão foi encerrada. A juíza foi direta em sua avaliação: classificou o abandono como uma manobra premeditada para obstruir um julgamento que caminhava para um veredicto, não como resposta legítima a problemas processuais.
As consequências foram imediatas. A juíza determinou que a OAB investigue a conduta dos advogados e que a defesa arque com os custos gerados pela sessão frustrada. Um novo júri será convocado em data ainda a ser definida — e a morte de Henry Borel, que mobilizou o país há cinco anos, segue à espera de uma resposta da Justiça.
The trial of Dr. Jairinho, a former city councilman accused in the 2021 death of a child named Henry Borel, came to an abrupt halt on Monday when his legal team walked out of the courtroom. The jury—seven citizens drawn by lot to decide the defendant's guilt or innocence—never got the chance to deliberate. Instead, the judge suspended proceedings and ordered the case rescheduled for a later date.
Jairinho's attorneys, Zanone Júnior and Fabiano Lopes, abandoned the session claiming they lacked complete access to the evidence against their client. They argued that under these conditions, a fair trial was impossible. The defense also said Jairinho himself opposed moving forward with the jury proceeding. They asked the judge to either suspend the trial entirely or separate Jairinho's case from that of Monique Medeiros, another defendant in the matter. Judge Elizabeth Machado Louro rejected both requests.
With no defense team present to continue, the courtroom emptied and the session ended. The judge's response was swift and pointed. She noted that the case had already been thoroughly examined and that the defense team had full ability to access the evidence they claimed was unavailable. She characterized the walkout as premeditated conduct—a deliberate maneuver rather than a spontaneous response to genuine procedural problems.
The consequences for the attorneys were immediate. Judge Louro ordered the Brazilian Bar Association, known as the OAB, to investigate the conduct of Jairinho's lawyers. She also ruled that the defense team must cover the costs incurred by holding the trial session—a financial penalty for the disruption. The case will be reassigned to a new jury panel at a date yet to be determined.
The death of Henry Borel in 2021 had drawn significant public attention in Brazil, and the trial's collapse raised questions about legal strategy, courtroom conduct, and the boundaries of defense representation. The judge's decision to order an ethics investigation suggested she viewed the walkout not as a legitimate tactical choice but as an abuse of process designed to derail proceedings that appeared to be moving toward a verdict.
Citas Notables
The judge stated the case had been thoroughly analyzed and the defense team had full ability to access the evidence— Judge Elizabeth Machado Louro
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would a defense team walk out of their own client's murder trial? That seems to guarantee a worse outcome.
It's a calculated move. By abandoning the courtroom, they prevent the jury from hearing closing arguments and deliberating. It forces a mistrial or suspension, buying time and potentially creating grounds for appeal based on procedural irregularities.
But the judge rejected their stated reasons—lack of evidence access. Did they actually not have the files, or was that a pretext?
The judge said the evidence was accessible and the case had been thoroughly analyzed. So either the defense was being dishonest about their access, or they were using a weak argument as cover for a strategy aimed at delay.
What does the OAB investigation mean for the lawyers themselves?
It's an ethics probe. If the bar finds they acted in bad faith—that the walkout was premeditated misconduct rather than a genuine response to a problem—they could face sanctions, fines, or suspension of their license to practice.
And Jairinho? Does this help or hurt him?
In the short term, it delays his verdict. But it also signals to the court that his defense team may be acting against his interests or the interests of justice. That kind of conduct can damage credibility with judges and juries in future proceedings.