Fernando Sastre: São Paulo Porsche Trial Reports Await Independent Verification
Fernando Sastre is facing a São Paulo jury over the fatal Porsche collision that killed app-based driver Ornaldo da Silva Viana in 2024. Reporting published on October 28 and 29, 2026 supports the trial’s opening and accounts of witness testimony. A verdict or sentence was not established by the sources reviewed for this update.
The original research links could not all be opened directly, but additional coverage provides a firmer account than those headlines alone. The remaining uncertainty concerns the outcome and the completion of Thursday’s scheduled proceedings, rather than whether the case reached trial in Brazil.
What is verified about the Fernando Sastre trial update?
Published reporting places the jury proceedings at São Paulo’s Fórum Criminal da Barra Funda on October 28, with continuation expected on October 29. UOL’s second-day report describes further testimony scheduled for Thursday. These accounts support an ongoing trial, but they do not establish that the jury had reached a verdict.
CNN Brasil’s October 28 preview identified judge Melanie Liesenberg as presiding over the session. Separately, SBT News reported that the hearing began on Wednesday and included testimony from people connected to the collision. Together, those reports resolve part of the earlier verification gap without establishing the eventual decision.
The collision behind the proceedings
The case concerns the March 31, 2024 collision on Avenida Salim Farah Maluf, in São Paulo’s eastern zone. Ornaldo, 52, was driving a Renault Sandero when it was struck from behind by the Porsche. Marcus Vinicius Machado Rocha, who was travelling in the sports car, was injured.
The prosecution alleges that the driver consumed alcohol and travelled at excessive speed before the crash. Those allegations are central to the case, but an accusation and a jury finding are different stages of the proceedings. This update does not treat disputed claims about the driver’s state as an established verdict.
What did witnesses reportedly say about alcohol?
SBT News reported that passenger Marcus Vinicius Machado Rocha testified that the defendant consumed alcohol before driving. UOL’s second-day account also described testimony from Juliana Simões that he drank before taking the wheel. These are attributed accounts of testimony; they do not independently establish a measured blood-alcohol level.
According to SBT, Marcus described the defendant speaking more loudly than usual and said friends and relatives had urged him not to drive. He recalled the vehicle leaving its parking space slowly before accelerating abruptly, after which he said he had no further recollection of the events.
The same report carried the defense’s challenge to the prosecution’s portrayal of intoxication. It described lawyer Jonas Marzagão disputing how much alcohol could be attributed to his client from drinks shared by the group. The disagreement is part of the competing courtroom accounts, rather than a resolved factual conclusion.
An important distinction between witnesses
The supplied headlines should not be compressed into a claim that every person mentioned testified. UOL reported that the defense withdrew the proposed testimony of Giovanna Pinheiro, the defendant’s former girlfriend. Its account identifies Juliana, Marcus’s girlfriend at the time, as another person who described drinking before the collision. You can also explore 11 Funny Scary Movies That Blend Horror and Humor Perfectly for more options.
CNN Brasil also reported the defense’s position that Giovanna had appeared on the witness list because of a judicial error and that there was no longer interest in hearing her. These accounts make the identities and procedural roles significant: presence at court does not by itself establish that someone gave evidence.
What remained unresolved on the second day
UOL’s October 29 report listed the defendant, a military police officer and an expert among those expected to be heard. A schedule establishes what was planned when a report was published. It does not confirm that each appearance subsequently occurred, what was said or when the session ended.
For Fernando Sastre, the defense’s stated objective was a reclassification to negligent conduct involving imprudence, according to CNN Brasil. That reported position provides relevant context missing from the earlier draft. It remains a defense argument; the reviewed material does not establish whether the jury accepted it.
Likewise, the supplied Estadão headline refers to a prosecution request for 20 years in prison. The linked article could not be read directly during this research, so the specific request remains unconfirmed here. It must not be presented as an imposed punishment or as proof of conviction.
The available coverage therefore supports a more specific update than a blanket statement that nothing could be verified. It documents a trial and competing accounts while leaving the final outcome open. Any subsequent account of Thursday’s proceedings needs to distinguish newly reported evidence, arguments from the parties and a decision actually delivered by the court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was a verdict confirmed on October 29, 2026?
No verdict was established by the reporting reviewed for this update. Available accounts describe the trial’s opening, first-day testimony and planned continuation on October 29. They do not provide a verified final decision here, so this article cannot confirm a conviction, an acquittal or the conclusion of the proceedings.
Did the former girlfriend testify at the trial?
UOL reported that the defense withdrew Giovanna Pinheiro’s testimony, despite earlier steps to secure her attendance. Its account separately identifies Juliana Simões as a witness who described alcohol consumption. The distinction matters because the two women should not be treated as interchangeable when summarizing what was reportedly heard in court.
Was a 20-year prison sentence imposed?
No 20-year sentence was verified in the sources reviewed. The supplied Estadão headline describes a prosecution request, which is different from a court decision imposing punishment. Without reporting documenting the final ruling, the requested term cannot be used as the defendant’s confirmed sentence or as evidence that sentencing has finished.
