A íntima convicção no Tribunal do Júri: uma análise crítica sobre as motivações silenciosas das decisões dos jurados do plenário

Abstract

This academic paper aims to comprehend the compatibility of the current Jury Court procedure with the constitutional and procedural principles of the Brazilian legal system. To achieve this, an empirical research was conducted at the Jury Trial Court in the Judiciary of Juiz de Fora-MG, during the second semester of 2023, asking, directly to the jurors, which factors are most taken into consideration for the exercise of its function. Likewise, an assessment was made of the jurors’ knowledge regarding basic aspects related to the evaluation of criminal evidence, impartiality, and other principles crucial for the issuance of a fair and constitutional decision. Subsequently, the aim was to analyze the compatibility of the gathered data with existing doctrinal theses, particularly, supporting the rationalist approach to the process developed by Marcella Nardelli in her work “The Evidence in the Jury Court, a rationalist approach”, which, although not presents a positive perspective of the courtroom procedure, proposes possibilities for improvement to ensure the rationality of the popular judgment. In conclusion, the current procedure was deemed ineffective in realizing the current constitutional principles, requiring a modification of infraconstitutional aspects of the courtroom organization to ensure the rationality and constitutionality of the jury, presenting possible paths for the exercise of endogenous motivation in the plenary decisions.