What difference would waiting a few months have made?
No Rio de Janeiro, um julgamento que já carrega o peso de anos de dor pública enfrentou uma ruptura inesperada: não por uma reviravolta jurídica, mas por uma questão de consciência. Quando o tribunal recusou suspender as sessões após um infarto sofrido por um colega de defesa, o advogado Sérgio Figueiredo escolheu retirar-se, sinalizando que há limites que a engrenagem da justiça não deveria ignorar. O caso Henry Borel continua, mas agora carregando também a pergunta que Figueiredo deixou no ar: a que custo humano se mede a urgência de um veredicto?
- Um infarto sofrido pelo advogado Fabiano Lopes durante a sessão transformou o tribunal em palco de uma crise que ia além do jurídico.
- O juiz recusou o pedido de adiamento da defesa, determinando que o julgamento seguisse mesmo com a equipe em colapso.
- Sérgio Figueiredo protocolou sua renúncia e a tornou pública na segunda-feira, denunciando a decisão como irresponsável e desrespeitosa.
- Vinte e três requerimentos apresentados pela defesa nesta fase foram todos rejeitados, revelando um padrão de inflexibilidade que Figueiredo não estava disposto a aceitar.
- A equipe de Jairinho segue com seis advogados, incluindo o hospitalizado Lopes, enfraquecida em número e em moral num julgamento de altíssimo perfil.
O tribunal do Rio de Janeiro ainda absorvia o impacto do que havia acontecido quando Sérgio Figueiredo se levantou para anunciar sua saída. Era segunda-feira, 26 de maio, e o julgamento pela morte de Henry Borel — caso que mobilizou o Brasil por anos — estava em curso. Mas Figueiredo, um dos defensores de Jairo Souza Santos Júnior, o Jairinho, havia tomado uma decisão: abandonaria o caso ali mesmo, e queria que o tribunal soubesse o motivo.
O estopim não foi uma divergência de estratégia nem uma crise de confiança no cliente. Foi uma questão de decência elementar. Fabiano Lopes, o membro mais experiente da equipe de defesa, sofreu um infarto durante as sessões. A defesa pediu adiamento. O juiz negou. O julgamento seguiu.
Figueiredo havia protocolado o pedido de renúncia no dia anterior, mas usou sua presença em plenário para tornar o protesto inequívoco. Ele lançou uma pergunta que ecoou na sala: que diferença faria esperar mais um, dois ou três meses? A sociedade ainda receberia sua resposta — condenação ou absolvição. Apenas o tempo mudaria, não a substância da justiça. Ainda assim, o tribunal escolheu a continuidade em detrimento do bem-estar dos que conduziam a defesa.
Para reforçar seu argumento, Figueiredo apresentou um dado revelador: vinte e três requerimentos protocolados nesta fase do julgamento, todos negados. O padrão, sugeriu ele, dizia algo além de simples discordâncias táticas — dizia de um tribunal incapaz de ceder mesmo diante do excepcional.
Com sua saída, a defesa de Jairinho passou de sete para seis advogados. Lopes permanece formalmente na equipe, mas ausente por razões de saúde — exatamente o motivo pelo qual a pausa havia sido solicitada. O caso Henry Borel avança, como o juiz determinou, mas agora com uma defesa reduzida e com a lembrança de que um de seus membros escolheu a consciência antes da continuidade.
The courtroom in Rio de Janeiro was still processing what had just happened when Sérgio Figueiredo stood to announce his departure. It was Monday, May 26th, and the trial examining the death of Henry Borel—a case that had gripped Brazil for years—was underway. But Figueiredo, one of the defense attorneys for Jairo Souza Santos Júnior, known as Jairinho, had made a decision. He was walking away from the case, effective immediately, and he wanted the court to understand why.
The trigger was not a sudden loss of faith in his client's innocence or a conflict with the legal strategy. It was a matter of what Figueiredo saw as basic human decency. His colleague Fabiano Lopes, the most senior member of Jairinho's legal team, had suffered a heart attack during the proceedings. The defense had asked for an adjournment—a pause, a chance to regroup, to ensure that Lopes received proper care and that the team could function. The judge refused. The trial continued.
Figueiredo had filed the resignation request the day before, but he used his appearance in court on Monday to make his objection public and unmistakable. He explained that the defense had requested a delay, and when that request was denied, he felt compelled to leave. In his statement, he posed a question that seemed to hang in the air: what difference would it have made to wait one, two, or three more months? Society would still get its answer—either a conviction or an acquittal. The delay would not have changed the substance of justice, only its timing. Yet the court had deemed the continuity of the trial more important than the welfare of the people trying the case.
The decision to proceed, Figueiredo said, amounted to irresponsibility and disrespect toward Lopes. He had come prepared with documentation: twenty-three separate motions filed in connection with this hearing alone, all of them unsuccessful. Twenty-three attempts to shape the proceedings in ways he believed were necessary for a fair defense, and twenty-three rejections. The pattern, he seemed to suggest, reflected something deeper than disagreement over legal tactics. It reflected a court unwilling to bend, even when circumstances demanded it.
With Figueiredo's departure, Jairinho's defense team contracted from seven lawyers to six. Lopes remained on the roster, but he was now absent due to health concerns—the very reason the defense had asked for a pause in the first place. The team would have to continue without one of its most experienced members actively present, and without the attorney who had just walked out in protest. The case would proceed, as the judge had determined it must, but the defense was now operating at reduced capacity, both in numbers and in the confidence of those remaining.
The Henry Borel case had already consumed years of legal proceedings and public attention. The death of the four-year-old boy in 2020 had shocked Rio de Janeiro and sparked intense scrutiny of those accused in connection with it. Now, as the trial moved forward, the courtroom dynamics had shifted again—not because of new evidence or legal arguments, but because one attorney had decided that some principles could not be compromised, even in service of his client's defense.
Notable Quotes
The adjournment would have made no difference—society would have received its answer, whether conviction or acquittal, in a few months' time.— Sérgio Figueiredo, defense attorney
The decision to continue was irresponsibility and disrespect toward Lopes.— Sérgio Figueiredo, in his statement to the court
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a defense attorney resign in the middle of a trial? Doesn't that hurt his client's case?
It does, which is exactly why Figueiredo's decision carries weight. He was saying that what happened in that courtroom violated something he couldn't accept—not just as a lawyer, but as a person.
But the judge made a call to keep going. Judges do that. What made this different?
A colleague had a heart attack. The defense asked for time—not years, just a pause. The judge said no. Figueiredo saw that as a choice to prioritize procedure over human reality.
Did he think the judge was being unfair to his client, or unfair to his colleague?
Both, maybe. But his statement focused on the colleague. He was saying: this isn't how we should treat each other in a courtroom, regardless of who wins the case.
What happens to Jairinho now, with one fewer lawyer?
The team shrinks, and one of the most experienced members is sidelined by health issues. The defense loses momentum and institutional knowledge right when they need it most.
Is this about the case itself, or about the system?
It's both. Figueiredo was critiquing a specific judge's decision, but also the rigidity of a system that won't pause even when someone's life is at stake.