no longer room for delaying tactics designed to keep the case away from a jury
Após anos de investigação e manobras processuais, o julgamento de Jairinho — ex-vereador acusado de matar o menino Henry Borel, de quatro anos — avança sem mais adiamentos. Um desembargador do Rio de Janeiro rejeitou o pedido da defesa para suspender o processo, reconhecendo que o obstáculo alegado — um notebook danificado — decorria de impossibilidade física, não de falha judicial. O caso, que carrega o peso irreparável da morte de uma criança, se aproxima do veredicto do júri.
- A defesa de Jairinho tentou mais uma vez suspender o julgamento, alegando que não teve acesso a um notebook apreendido durante a investigação — um argumento que o tribunal considerou insuficiente.
- O dispositivo estava inacessível por dano irreparável causado pelo desuso prolongado, tornando qualquer alegação de prejuízo baseada nele juridicamente frágil.
- A saída da defesa de uma sessão em março, citando falta de acesso a provas, perdeu força quando o juiz apontou que ao menos um dos obstáculos — o celular — já havia sido superado.
- O material relevante do notebook já constava nos autos desde novembro do ano anterior, sem que defesa ou acusação o tivessem solicitado a tempo.
- O pai de Henry, o vereador Leniel Borel, celebrou a decisão, afirmando que não há mais espaço para táticas protelatórias e que todos os responsáveis devem responder perante o júri.
O julgamento de Jairo Souza Santos Júnior, o Dr. Jairinho, ex-vereador do Rio de Janeiro acusado de matar Henry Borel — uma criança de quatro anos —, seguirá em frente. Na segunda-feira, 18 de maio, um desembargador rejeitou o pedido emergencial da defesa para suspender o processo.
Os advogados de Jairinho argumentaram que não conseguiram acessar um notebook apreendido na investigação, pertencente a um auxiliar da acusação, e que tentativas anteriores de obtê-lo foram frustradas por atrasos institucionais. O desembargador Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto não se convenceu: o juízo de primeiro grau já havia negado o acesso com base em um laudo técnico que atestava dano irreparável ao dispositivo causado pelo desuso. Não havia arbitrariedade na decisão — havia impossibilidade física.
O magistrado também lembrou que a defesa havia deixado uma sessão em março alegando falta de acesso a provas, mas que o obstáculo relativo ao celular do auxiliar já estava superado. Além disso, o conteúdo relevante do notebook já integrava os autos desde novembro do ano anterior, sem que nenhuma das partes o tivesse requerido a tempo. Caso a defesa entenda ter sofrido prejuízo, o caminho permanece aberto: a questão pode ser levantada como preliminar no próprio julgamento pelo júri.
Leniel Borel, pai de Henry e também vereador, reagiu à decisão no mesmo dia, declarando que o tribunal deixou claro não haver mais espaço para manobras protelatórias. Após anos de investigação e disputas processuais, o caso caminha para o veredicto.
The trial of Jairo Souza Santos Júnior—known as Dr. Jairinho, a former city councilman in Rio de Janeiro—will move forward. On Monday, May 18th, an appeals court judge rejected yet another attempt by his defense team to postpone proceedings in the case of Henry Borel, a four-year-old boy who died under circumstances that remain contested in court.
Jairinho stands accused of murdering the child. His lawyers had filed an emergency motion seeking to halt the trial, arguing they needed access to a notebook computer that was seized during the investigation. The device belonged to someone assisting the prosecution. The defense claimed they had requested this material repeatedly and in timely fashion, but faced institutional delays and incomplete deliveries that prevented them from reviewing it before trial.
Desembargador Joaquim Domingos de Almeida Neto, the judge who heard the appeal, found the argument unpersuasive. A lower court had already denied access to the notebook, and that decision, the appeals judge wrote, was justified by a simple fact: the device could not be accessed. A technical report showed the notebook had suffered irreparable damage from sitting unused over time. The physical condition of the machine made it impossible to retrieve the data.
The defense had walked out of a trial session on March 23rd, citing lack of access to both the notebook and a cell phone belonging to the prosecution's assistant. But the judge noted that this obstacle had already been overcome—at least regarding the phone. Moreover, he pointed out, material from the notebook that mattered to the prosecution had already been in the court file since November of the previous year. Neither the defense nor the prosecution had requested it until much later.
In his written decision, the judge stated plainly that the lower court's ruling was not absurd or legally defective. The denial of access was grounded in physical impossibility, not judicial whim. And if the defense believed they had suffered prejudice as a result, they could raise that as a preliminary objection when the jury trial itself began. That avenue remained open.
Leniel Borel, Henry's father and himself a city councilman, responded to the ruling the same day. He said the court's decision made clear that there was no longer room for delaying tactics designed to keep the case away from a jury trial. He expressed his desire that everyone responsible for what happened to his son would answer for their actions in court, with the full weight of the law behind the proceedings.
The decision closes off one more path the defense might have taken to postpone. The trial, after years of investigation and procedural maneuvering, appears set to proceed to a jury verdict.
Notable Quotes
The decision of the Rio de Janeiro appeals court makes clear there is no longer space for delaying maneuvers that try to keep the trial away from jury proceedings. My wish is that all those responsible answer for their actions before Justice, with the full rigor of the law.— Leniel Borel, Henry's father and city councilman
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a damaged notebook matter so much that a defense team would try to stop a trial over it?
Because in a murder case, especially one this high-profile, the defense needs to examine every piece of evidence the prosecution has. They're saying they couldn't do their job without seeing what was on that computer.
But the court said the notebook was damaged beyond repair. So there's nothing to see anyway, right?
That's the judge's point, yes. But the defense argues they should have been given the chance to try—that institutional delays kept them from even attempting to access it in time. They're claiming the system failed them.
And the judge didn't buy that?
No. He noted that relevant material from the notebook was already in the court file months earlier. The defense could have reviewed it then. They didn't ask for it until later. So the judge saw this less as a genuine obstacle and more as a delay tactic.
What happens now?
The trial moves forward. If the defense still believes they were prejudiced by not seeing the notebook, they can raise that issue when the jury trial actually begins. But they can't stop the trial from happening.
How many times has the defense tried to postpone this?
This is at least another attempt. The case has been moving through the system for years. For Henry's father, each delay is another year without answers about what happened to his son.