Minister Edson Fachin, president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the National Council of Justice (CNJ), said, this Monday (3), that the Judiciary is not “idly standing by” and seeks to speed up jury courts across the country, for a faster solution to crimes against life.. 
”It is a response from the Judiciary to the legitimate interest of Brazilian society, which seeks trust [na Justiça]”, said Fachin.
The minister participated, in Recife, in the opening of National Jury Month, an annual mobilization to carry out as many trials by the Jury Court as possible during the month of November.
According to data from the CNJ, last year 8,300 cases were judged during the concentrated effort. This year, intentional crimes against the lives of women, children under 14 years of age, actions involving police officers and cases with more than five years of processing without an outcome are prioritized.
Fachin stated that the guideline at the moment is to prioritize and increase the frequency of popular jury sessions on court dockets and modernize the processing of this type of action.
“Between the commission of an act, the filing of the complaint and its judgment, an increasingly shorter amount of time must pass,” he said.
The minister acknowledged that there are well-founded criticisms about the imperfections of the Jury Court, but said that it is an institute provided for in the Constitution and that, therefore, it must be strengthened.
>> Follow the channel Brazil Agency on WhatsApp
He added that “debates and discussions will be held about the meaning and scope of the Jury Court’s decisions”, but the objective will always be “to deepen the importance of Justice that is carried out with the participation of society”.
In one of the STF’s most recent decisions on the matter, handed down in 2024, and confirmed after the end of appeals in August this year, the plenary established that, in the case of conviction, serving the sentence must begin immediately after a conviction by a popular jury..
At the time, the decision was criticized by lawyers, who saw it as a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, since appeals to higher courts, even if they can only address formal issues and not the re-examination of evidence, can still lead to the annulment of a jury decision.
