Analysis of the (In)compatibility of Plea Bargaining with
the Brazilian Criminal Procedure
Name: AMANDA MISAEL MACHADO
Publication date: 19/05/2025
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| ANTONIO HENRIQUE GRACIANO SUXBERGER | Examinador Externo |
| CLAUDIO IANNOTTI DA ROCHA | Examinador Interno |
| RICARDO GUEIROS BERNARDES DIAS | Presidente |
Summary: This master’s dissertation analyzes the (im)possibility of importing a U.S.criminalnegotiation institute into the Brazilian legal system: Plea Bargaining.Generally, pleabargaining can be defined as the exchange of official concessions in returnfor thedefendant’s confession. Although succinct, the proposed concept identifiesthe twoessential elements for characterizing the institute under analysis: (a)concessionsgranted by the State, in exchange for (b) the defendant’s admission ofguilt, eitherthrough direct confession or by choosing not to contest their guilt. On thissubject, theresearch sought to determine whether the adoption of plea bargaining, as amechanism to expedite the final judicial response, is compatible withBraziliancriminal procedure. In particular, it analyzed the legislative bills proposedby Brazilianlawmakers attempting to incorporate plea bargaining into the country’slegalframework. The research also examined the origins of plea bargaining, theevolutionof the procedure, and the controversies surrounding this U.S. institute. Byconcludingon its compatibility with the guiding principles of the national criminalprocess, thestudy aimed to establish a proper understanding of the institute and proposepossibleimprovements to guide the approval of criminal agreements. In conclusion,althoughthe abbreviated procedure dispenses with full evidentiary hearings, it doesnotauthorize the complete elimination of a minimally qualified evidentiarybasis. Therequirement of sufficient evidence beyond the confession emerges as abalancingpoint, as it combines procedural efficiency with the preservation of thedefendant’sguarantees. In this context, the study advocated the adoption of anintermediateevidentiary standard, which, while lower than the “proof beyond areasonable doubt”required in a full trial, does not accept an isolated confession, demandingitscorroboration by minimal extrinsic evidence.
