28 analysis conducted by the Federal Police crime laboratory and finding that Otávio Ernesto Moreira's shotgun had been one of the weapons used in the homicide; and on a request by the third-party plaintiffs in the charges to suspend the jury trial and, if not, to hear the witness Angélica da Silva Campelino during the jury trial. The Office of the Public Prosecutor did not object to attaching the note on the shotgun submitted by the defense; however, it ruled that the requests by the third-party plaintiffs in the charges were out of order, as they did not have the procedural standing to present such a motion, and it denied the request to hear from Angélica da Silva Campelino as the stipulated period had passed.47 67.31. The jury trial took place on June 6 and 7, 2002 to determine whether the charge of homicide against Otávio Ernesto Moreira was legally sound. To begin with, the President of the Jury ruled on motions filed prior to the sitting of the jury (supra paras. 67(27), 67(28) and 67(29)). He explained that the declaration by Angélica da Silva Campelino was already present in the court files for the trial, but the motion for her to be heard was out of order because the deadline had passed; that the motion lodged by the parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho had no staying effect and therefore gave no legal grounds to delay the sitting of the jury, and that the third-party plaintiffs in the charges did not have standing to lodge such a motion; and he accepted the technical note submitted by the defense, adding it to the case files as an opinion. Subsequently, having heard statements from the witnesses and arguments by the plaintiffs and the defense, the judge presiding over the jury trial posed the questions that the jury must answer in order to find its verdict. The first question, using the same wording as the criminal charge leveled by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, was: “On October 20, 1996, in the pre-dawn hours, in the street called Projetada[, bearing no house number], did the accused Otávio Ernesto Moreira, using an American-made Remington 12-gauge shotgun, model Wingmaster 870, […] fire shots at […] Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, producing the injuries described in the [applicable autopsy report]?” The jury, by a vote of five to two, answered “no” to this question, thus returning a verdict of acquittal.48 67.32. On June 28, 2002, the Office of the Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision of the jury, asking for a new trial with a different jury and claiming that the ruling in question contradicted evidence contained in the case files. The parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho also appealed the ruling in their capacity as third-party plaintiffs in the charges, on July 16, 2002. On March 6, 2004, the Second Criminal Chamber of the State Court of Rio Grande do Norte denied the preliminary objections filed by the third-party plaintiffs in the charges and dismissed the appeal filed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor on the grounds that the decision of the jury cannot be considered to contradict evidence contained in the case files of the procedure when there is other evidence consistent with their decision, in this case, the arguments of the defense. On March 9, 2004, the parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, in their capacity as third-party plaintiffs in the charges, filed a “motion of interpretation” against the ruling of March 6, 2004; it was denied by the same court on 47 Cf. opinion of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State of Rio Grande do Norte, June 4, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5120 through 5123). 48 Cf. record of the first sitting of the Second Jury of the Court of Natal, June 7, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folios 5163 and 5167); voting record of the sentencing council, June 7, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folio 5144); acquittal issued by the presiding judge of the jury trial, Célio de Figueiredo Maia, June 7, 2002 (file of appendixes to the response to the application, Appendix 1, Volume 6, folio 5146); and the criminal complaint of January 25, 1999, supra note 22.