Mandelblit's Testimony in Netanyahu Trial Takes Dramatic Turn

The testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a dramatic turn, according to senior criminalist Sashi Gz. Gz explained that while Mandelblit's appearance on the witness stand is a significant public event, legal flaws in the investigation may not automatically benefit Netanyahu, as Israel does not follow the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, unlike the US. This means that evidence obtained through improper investigative methods is not automatically disqualified.

However, Gz noted that wiretaps obtained illegally could be an exception and might affect the admissibility of evidence. He described Mandelblit's testimony as a "dramatic day" because it is unusual for a former Attorney General to testify. While some aspects of the testimony, such as investigative actions taken without Mandelblit's explicit approval, were expected, Gz stressed that not every procedural flaw invalidates the entire case. The public perception, especially with elections approaching, might be significant, but the legal focus remains on the criminal aspects.

Gz also pointed out a significant limitation for Netanyahu's defense team: Mandelblit was called as a defense witness, meaning the defense cannot cross-examine him freely. This presents a risk, as the witness might reveal information detrimental to the defense. The core of the questioning is expected to focus on approvals for opening investigations and key investigative actions, including a specific tactic used against Nir Hefetz. Even if this tactic was not approved by Mandelblit, it may not be enough to dismiss the evidence or the trial.

Another key question is how much the court will allow the defense to delve into the internal deliberations of the prosecution. Gz suggested the court might limit inquiry into internal discussions and disagreements that led to the indictment, stating that internal prosecutorial considerations might not be relevant to the current legal decision. He also warned that exploring these internal debates could backfire, potentially leading Mandelblit to highlight instances where he was more lenient than other prosecutors, such as in cases 1000 and 2000, where he opted for fraud and breach of trust charges instead of bribery.

Gz concluded that the legal significance of Mandelblit's testimony will depend not only on what he says but also on the extent to which the court permits the defense to scrutinize police actions, prosecutorial decisions, and internal discussions leading to the indictment. He anticipates the testimony could be lengthy and exceptionally unusual.