Let the defendant stand up

Over a decade ago, in a courthouse in the interior of the country, a trial was underway that addressed a sensitive issue for the community of a small village. The courtroom filled with people. One faction wanted the defendants to be convicted, while the other was outraged by the tremendous injustice represented by the mere fact that they had been charged. There were no seats to spare. The audience passionately followed every testimony, every request, and scrutinized every expression on the judge's face. After several sessions, the trial reached its final moment. The Public Prosecutor and lawyers were about to deliver their arguments and attempt to show the judge why, in their opinion, the defendants should be convicted or acquitted. In a moment of greater assertion, one of the lawyers was adamant in stating that some of the witnesses had lied to the court and presented false accounts. The heated arguments spilled over into the audience, which, wary of their respective factions' arguments, became uncontrollably agitated. In an instant, defendants, witnesses, and the public were involved in a tumult and shouting match, preparing to begin a physical confrontation. Lacking the resources for more decisive intervention, the judge ordered the adversaries to leave the courtroom, but his voice was barely audible amid the confusion that ensued. Unsuccessful in his intervention, the judge called the police, who rushed to the scene and managed to disperse the crowd, ensuring everyone's safety. The hearing was interrupted and later resumed behind closed doors. Once those responsible were identified, the judge ordered a certificate to be issued detailing the incident, as well as the recordings of the trial, forwarding them to the Public Prosecutor's Office for the appropriate investigation. Some time later, those responsible were charged with the crime of disrupting the functioning of a constitutional body and tried before a collective court. During the trial, they confessed to the acts, apologized for what had happened, and were convicted in criminal proceedings.

It is no coincidence that the law grants the judge the power to direct and discipline trial hearings, just as it provides for the possibility of imposing sanctions on procedural participants or other persons attending the trial who violate their duties of conduct. In some cases, the judge's intervention merely regulates the smooth running of proceedings, but in others, as in the example cited, it can even be crucial for the safety of those present.

When we speak of the powers of direction vested in judges, we must first understand that, in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, courts are the places where justice is served in the name of the people. Publicly and before the community, facts are discussed and evidence is presented, so that the judge can, equitably, impartially, and independently, decide how a particular dispute should be resolved or how social peace should be restored.

In this context, judges are responsible for presiding over the trial, directing the proceedings, conducting inquiries or cross-examinations, ensuring the right to a hearing, and ordering proceedings to ensure a successful outcome. However, judges also have the power to take the necessary measures to stop any acts of disruption during the hearing, ensure the safety of the participants, and moderate the discussion, prohibiting impertinent or dilatory measures.

In turn, defendants and the citizens attending the hearing are required to behave in a manner that does not disrupt the order and regularity of the proceedings, as well as to respect the dignity of the court. Furthermore, the law states that they must comply with the determinations regarding hearing discipline, adopting respectful behavior toward the court.

These powers and duties are not a personal concession to the judge, nor were they intended to confer any privilege upon him or her. On the contrary, these powers of direction are a direct emanation of popular sovereignty. If, in a democracy, by definition, power resides with the people, and if judicial power is a sovereign power exercised in their name, it is inevitable to conclude that the powers conferred on the judge, whether in directing the hearing or in deciding the case, consist of popular powers, exercised by constitutional delegation.

On the other hand, since the purpose of any trial is to enhance the clarification of facts, allow for the discussion of opposing arguments, and facilitate a decision that resolves the dispute, it is essential that the judge not only guarantees the dignity and excellence of the proceedings, but also prevents the court's time from being wasted on delaying tactics, offensive interventions, or disrespect for the rules of the process.

In this sense, the judge can and should warn, reprimand, or even sanction those who disrupt the hearing. They can limit interventions, demand brevity, and impose discipline and order without which the purpose of the trial cannot be achieved, with inherent harm to the parties or the public interest. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that disrespecting the judge's powers of direction and torpedoing the rules for the proper functioning of trials is, in practice, disrespecting the very functioning of justice. When an intervening party abusively interrupts, uses inappropriate language, challenges the court's authority without foundation, or engages in behavior that hinders the discovery of the truth, they are not only jeopardizing the individual entrusted with the task of judging, but also harming society's collective interest in fair, speedy, and effective processes. They are affronting the people, whose will is expressed through the proper functioning of institutions.

This is why the law provides for sanctions for those who violate the order of the hearing, ranging from a warning to expulsion from the room, or, in more serious cases, criminal prosecution. These possibilities are not merely symbolic, but rather indispensable instruments to ensure that no one places themselves above the law.

However, it is also important to emphasize that the judge's authority is essential to the proper functioning of justice, and it always requires strict compliance with the law and impartiality in the performance of his or her duties, respecting the rights of all parties involved. The powers of direction granted to the judge do not constitute a form of censorship or silencing, but rather a guarantee that the process and the final decision itself are not tainted by pressure of any kind, and that the truth can only be ascertained in a calm and respectful environment.

In this context, the judge publicly presents himself as the holder of sovereign power exercised in the name of the people and by their delegation. The powers he wields are fundamental in a society designed around the pillars of democracy. Therefore, any conduct that seeks to disrupt the functioning of justice or exploit the process for other purposes is highly detrimental to a rule of law. Indeed, at a time when democracies suffer notable deficits in various parts of the world and when the rule of law is being challenged, particularly through attacks on the independence and action of the courts, it is important to emphasize the need to understand that the trial hearing aims to resolve the situation of specific citizens. It is not a media spectacle, nor is it a battlefield. Rather, it is a place where truth is uncovered, redress, and a just decision are sought.

Therefore, respect for the legal and sovereign powers conferred on the judge appears, from the outset, as a civic imperative of respect for the people themselves and for the collective construction that is justice, which cannot be achieved without direction, rules, respect and trust.

When a judge orders silence, regulates the time, interrupts an inappropriate intervention, or reprimands disruptive or insulting behavior, they are not exercising a whim but rather fulfilling a duty entrusted to them by the people and the Constitution. Disrespecting this legally conferred authority constitutes not only disrespect for the individual judge, but also disrespect for the entire community the judge represents. In a democratic regime, the court is one of the visible faces of the State, and the judge is its voice at the decisive moment of the process. The powers to direct the hearing are not protocolary trappings, but indispensable tools to ensure that justice is served with order, dignity, and equity. To respect them is to respect the people. And to disrespect them is, ultimately, to reject democracy.

The texts in this section reflect the authors' personal opinions. They do not represent VISÃO nor reflect its editorial position.