Resumo:
This research aims to investigate the consequences of the confession required for the conclusion of a non-prosecution agreement when the agreement is subsequently terminated, especially if it is admitted in the proceedings and if the admissibility criteria are sufficient to avoid cognitive biases and compromise judicial impartiality. To this end, a case study was conducted, examining a criminal prosecution that resulted in the final conviction of na individual whose non-prosecution agreement was terminated, whose confession was valued in the formation of the conviction, as a starting point for subsequent dialogue with the bibliographic references gathered. In conclusion, it was found that the requirement of confession in the non-prosecution agreement is unconstitutional, incompatible with the microsystem of negotiated criminal justice, and does not have a legitimate political-criminal function. Furthermore, in the event of termination of the agreement and subsequent filing of charges, the confession lacks sufficient reliability to be admissible in the case file. Moreover, even if this admission of guilt is not admitted, the necessary loss of cognitive originality of the judge, with the knowledge that the defendant has already confessed to the crime, is sufficient to compromise judicial impartiality and subject the procedural investigation to cognitive biases.
