NULLITY OF PRETRIAL DETENTION DECISIONS DUE TO GENERIC REASONING: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JURISPRUDENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES (DEOLANE, KELL FERRETTI, AND ORUAM CASES)

Abstract

This article investigates the nullity of preventive detention orders grounded on generic reasoning in high-profile media cases, focusing on the episodes involving Deolane Bezerra, Oruam, and the public case attributed to Kell Ferreti, analyzed in light of recent case law from Brazil’s higher courts and contemporary criminal procedural doctrine. The research problem lies in the tension between the constitutional requirement of concrete judicial reasoning and the recurring use of precautionary detention orders based on abstract formulas, such as the guarantee of public order, the seriousness of the offense, and social repercussions, particularly in contexts of intense media pressure. The general objective is to critically examine the extent to which generic reasoning in media-driven cases undermines the validity of detention orders and justifies the recognition of nullity due to violations of due process of law, the duty to provide reasons, and the presumption of innocence. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative approach of a bibliographical, documentary, and hermeneutic-jurisprudential nature, integrating the theory of procedural nullities, penal guarantism, and critiques of the spectacularization of criminal proceedings. The findings indicate that intensive media coverage encourages the use of stereotyped, semantically open grounds detached from the contemporaneity of procedural risk, a phenomenon that weakens the exceptional nature of preventive detention and broadens the scope for performative judicial decisions. It is concluded that the absence of individualized and empirically demonstrable reasoning constitutes a structural defect in the judicial act, requiring the recognition of absolute nullity whenever precautionary detention is sustained by public outcry or standardized language, in violation of Article 315 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure and constitutional standards governing judicial reasoning.