A implementação do juiz das garantias no Estado do Maranhão: análise à luz da Resolução nº 562/2024 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça

Abstract

This paper analyzes the process of implementing the judge of guarantees in the state of Maranhão, both within the State Judiciary, under the jurisdiction of the Maranhão Court of Justice (TJMA), and within the Federal Judiciary, under the Maranhão Judicial Section, linked to the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF1). The study is grounded in the understanding that the institute, introduced by Law No. 13,964/2019, constitutes a mechanism for giving effect to the accusatorial system and for safeguarding judicial impartiality, by establishing a functional separation between the magistrate responsible for the investigation and the one responsible for adjudicating the merits, thereby preventing the cognitive contamination of the trial judge. The paper examines the judicial review of constitutionality carried out by the Federal Supreme Court in the joint judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality No. 6,298, 6,299, 6,300, and 6,305, which upheld the institute through an interpretation consistent with the Constitution and set a deadline for its nationwide implementation, under the supervision of the National Council of Justice, giving rise to CNJ Resolution No. 562/2024. Adopting a qualitative approach and relying on bibliographic and documentary research, the study analyzes Joint Resolution Presi/Coger No. 3/2024, issued by TRF1, and Resolutions-GP No. 121/2024 and No. 31/2026, issued by TJMA, comparing them against the guidelines set by the CNJ. The findings show that both courts complied with the essential core of the national regulation, preserving the functional separation, the automation of case distribution, and the exclusion hypotheses, albeit through distinct structural models. The study concludes that the implementation of the judge of guarantees in Maranhão is normatively consolidated in both judicial spheres, although it still lacks empirical assessment of its practical effectiveness in everyday judicial practice.