Judicial immunity: Brazil's Superior Court of Justice dismisses appeal in defamation case.

The 5th Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) of Brazil unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by the Public Ministry of Paraná against the decision that recognized the judicial immunity of a lawyer and acquitted him of the charge of slander. The case dates back to the moment when the lawyer, in the midst of a heated exchange with a prosecutor, called her "rude" and expressed that "the girl's education is in the kitchen of her house" after she told him to "shut up." The original Court determined that the offense of slander was not established in this case, as the lawyer acted under the exemption provided for in article 142, section I, of the Penal Code. It was highlighted that there were mutual insults between the lawyer and the prosecutor, which influenced the final decision of the acquittal. Initially accused of aggravated slander, the Public Ministry of Paraná also argued that the lawyer had made statements with discriminatory connotations by mentioning the northeastern origin of the prosecutor and referring to the headquarters of Operation Car Wash. However, the Court of Justice of Paraná considered that the insults uttered in the context of a trial were protected by judicial immunity. The Public Ministry filed an appeal alleging that the ruling did not adequately explain why the lawyer's insults were considered protected by judicial immunity. However, the STJ reaffirmed that judges are not obligated to address all issues raised, but it is sufficient for them to explain the reasons supporting their decision. Minister Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, rapporteur of the case, pointed out that the review of the original Court's decision could not go beyond what had been raised in the issued decisions, avoiding an analysis incompatible with established jurisprudence. Judicial immunity in the context of insults during a trial was reaffirmed as a fundamental principle. In its argumentation, the Court highlighted that the exchange of insults between the parties during a discussion in the Jury Court is part of the rhetorical strategies used to persuade the jurors. In this context, the lawyer's conduct was considered within the limits allowed by judicial immunity. Minister Soares da Fonseca emphasized that when parties provoke each other with insults during a trial, they must bear the consequences of their actions in a context of reciprocity. The final decision of the STJ upheld the lawyer's acquittal and reaffirmed the application of judicial immunity in situations where insults are uttered in the judicial sphere. In conclusion, this case highlights the importance of judicial immunity in the practice of law and in the development of trials. The STJ's decision sets an important precedent regarding the protection of lawyers and parties involved in judicial processes, establishing clear limits regarding the exchange of insults and the application of the law in these specific cases.