SÃO PAULO, Brazil — Just six months ago, Brazil’s highest court handed down stiff prison sentences to powerful political figures found guilty in a vast vote-buying scheme, a move widely praised here as a watershed moment in a country where citizens long expected little more than impunity from politicians caught in corruption scandals.  But the celebrating may have been premature.  No official sentenced in what was arguably Brazil’s largest corruption scandal has gone to jail, despite Prosecutor General Roberto Gurgel’s contention that they should have begun serving their sentences immediately after the high court announced them in November.  The court did not formally publish its decision until April and lawyers for the convicted officials filed a barrage of appeals this month. According to legal scholars, some of the appeals may significantly alter the sentences, allowing top defendants like José Dirceu de Oliveira e Silva, a former presidential chief of staff, to wriggle out of hard jail time.  “The case is less open-and-shut than people thought,” said Matthew M. Taylor, a scholar at American University in Washington who specializes in Brazil’s legal system. “If we start to see lower sentences, then the public reaction could be a bitter letdown.”  Defense lawyers have been maneuvering to secure less stringent prison conditions, like the so-called semi-open arrangement in which convicts sleep in prison cells but are allowed to leave each day to work, and prominent officials in the governing Workers’ Party, which was shaken by the scandal, have been openly challenging the high court’s authority.  The president of the party, Rui Falcão, went so far as to say this month that it was too early to contemplate whether those convicted in the case would go to prison at all. Pointing to rising tension between the high court and Congress, Nazareno Fontes, a Workers’ Party congressman, said that justices who “disrespect” the legislative branch should be jailed.  Moreover, two legislators sentenced in the trial last year — including José Genoino Guimarães Neto, the president of the Workers’ Party at the time the scandal emerged in 2005 — have not only held onto their seats in Congress but have also supported a measure introduced by Mr. Fontes last month to amend the Constitution to let Congress revise the high court’s rulings on some matters.  Though the amendment is not expected to pass, it points to a new phase of uncertainty in the trial over the scandal, commonly called the mensalão, or big monthly allowance, for the regular payments made to legislators in exchange for their votes.  The trial, with its proceedings broadcast on national television over the course of four months last year, raised hopes in this country for a breakthrough of political accountability in a legal system that offers exceptional protections to political figures, who almost always avoid hard jail time in corruption cases.  But the appeals, which justices are expected to spend about two more months reviewing, offer a new turn in the case. Some of the appeals request fresh votes on rulings made by a narrow margin, like the guilty verdict for Mr. Oliveira e Silva, the former presidential chief of staff, for unlawful conspiracy, or essentially orchestrating the vote-buying scheme. His original sentence was 10 years and 10 months after he was found guilty of other crimes, including bribery.  Underscoring the complexity of the case and of Brazil’s judicial system, legal scholars here point out that the new twists in the trial do not suggest that the high court, which is handling the appeals itself, is acting improperly or lacking in judicial independence. Indeed, Joaquim Barbosa, the court’s chief justice, has signaled that he wants the original rulings and sentencing to stand.  Still, wild cards have emerged, especially in connection with the appeals over close votes — a rare legal procedure that Brazil may have inherited from Portugal, the former colonial ruler, which abolished such appeals in the 1930s — and because of the court’s changing composition.  Two justices have already retired since the 11-member court delivered its oral ruling in the trial last year, and some legal experts contend that one of the new justices, Teori Zavascki, has a long record of ruling in ways that would benefit the convicted officials. Furthermore, since there are currently only 10 justices on the court, a tied vote of 5 to 5 could reverse guilty rulings on some charges.  Another prominent justice, Ricardo Lewandowski, has already signaled that the defendants could be absolved of certain crimes, allowing them semi-open arrangements in prison and parole earlier than expected.  “I don’t see defendants being completely acquitted, but there could be decreases in penalties and more comfortable terms of incarceration,” said Oscar Vilhena, director of law at Fundação Getúlio Vargas, a top Brazilian university. “For some in society this would be disappointing, but Brazilian legislation is a lot softer than the U.S. system; it’s a much a more liberal system.”
Defense appeals may mean reduced sentences and overturned convictions in a case of vote-buying that was celebrated as a watershed in public accountability.