The ABC of the crisis

The crisis begins with messages found on the phone seized from Vorcaro. The messages did not identify their recipient, but they led investigators to conclude that they might indicate some kind of connection to Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who denies being Vorcaro’s contact.

That raises a legal question: if an investigation encounters indications involving a person with privileged jurisdiction, must the case be sent to the institution with authority to continue it? The first dispute is whether the investigation should already have been transferred to the Supreme Court.

If the answer is yes, the acts carried out could be declared invalid and produce no legal effect. More seriously, they could not serve as the basis for another investigation under the theory known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Any new investigation would require entirely new evidence. If the continuation was lawful, however, the case could proceed normally.

The article argues that the continuation was initially regular. The messages were found by chance, and investigators did not know when the evidence was collected whom they referred to. The principle of serendipity therefore applied. The content alone also did not establish who Vorcaro’s interlocutor was, particularly because authorship was denied. A judge could order clarification of the person’s identity in order to determine the proper procedure and jurisdiction.

Once the interlocutor was identified as a person with privileged jurisdiction, the investigation was sent as required by law. The article says no new investigative measure followed that identification, and the identity was established only through evidence already in the case file.

The text then turns to judicial involvement in investigations. It says courts should generally authorize or reject measures that restrict constitutional rights, such as telephone, tax and financial secrecy, but should not direct investigative actions under the accusatory principle. Identifying the interlocutor in already collected evidence, it argues, did not itself constitute a new investigative act. The broader expansion of judicial power, including the Fake News inquiry, requires a critical and independent analysis rather than a judgment based on one isolated case.

“

There is no new investigative measure after the identification of the interlocutor.