Lawyer Shocked by Investigator Misconduct in Netanyahu Trial
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Attorney Sasi Gaze was shocked by testimony in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial, revealing investigator misconduct. While acknowledging the dramatic nature of the evidence against the police and prosecution, Gaze cautioned that it may not automatically benefit Netanyahu's defense. He explained that courts can still admit evidence even if obtained through improper tactics, and the defense faces a high bar to have it excluded. Gaze also noted that such practices are not unique to this case and occur in many other criminal investigations.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Attorney Sasi Gaze expressed shock at investigator misconduct revealed during testimony in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial.
- Gaze stated that while the evidence is dramatic, it's uncertain if it will help Netanyahu's defense.
- He explained that improper investigative tactics don't automatically lead to evidence exclusion in Israeli courts.
- Gaze noted that the defense faces a difficult challenge in proving "defense from justice" to exclude evidence.
- The former Attorney General's confirmation of authorizing the investigation was a significant point, Gaze said.
- Gaze claimed that the revealed investigative methods are common in many other criminal cases.
Attorney Sasi Gaze expressed dismay after observing the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Gaze stated that the proceedings revealed "things that should not be done" by the police and prosecution, describing the testimony as dramatic and painting a very poor picture of law enforcement.
Despite the revelations of investigative failures and improper tactics, Gaze cautioned against drawing immediate conclusions about their impact on Netanyahu's defense. He explained that while such misconduct is disturbing, it does not automatically lead to the exclusion of evidence. The central question, he noted, is whether these "ugly" tactics will ultimately benefit Netanyahu's legal case.
Gaze highlighted the potential disconnect between public perception and legal outcomes. While the public might see the revelations as a sign of impending acquittal, the legal ramifications are more complex. He elaborated that a court could strongly criticize the police, even deeming a tactic improper, yet still admit the evidence if it is deemed reliable. The defense would need to demonstrate that these tactics directly influenced witness testimony or led to false statements to have a stronger case for excluding evidence.
He also addressed the defense's potential argument of "defense from justice," but deemed it unlikely to succeed in disqualifying evidence or overturning the proceedings, citing its rarity in Israeli legal history. However, Gaze acknowledged that a cumulative effect of multiple failures might sway the court's decision.
A key point of Mandelblit's testimony, according to Gaze, concerned whether he had authorized the investigations against the Prime Minister. Mandelblit affirmed he had given authorization, which Gaze believes is significant, though questions remain about whether specific approval was needed for every investigative action. Gaze suggested the court is unlikely to require individual approval for each step, as it would place an undue burden on the Attorney General.
Finally, Gaze asserted that some of the investigative methods exposed in Netanyahu's case are not unique and occur in many other criminal cases. He described the trial as an opportunity to observe common police practices, suggesting that similar, and sometimes more egregious, tactics have been employed in cases he has handled.
