Netanyahu's Lawyers Target Legal Basis of Evidence in Mandelblit Testimony

During the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his defense team, led by attorney Amit Haddad, is strategically focusing on a key legal argument during the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. While the timing of Mandelblit's appearance coincides with the final stretch of an election campaign, suggesting a political dimension, the defense's primary objective is to challenge the validity of crucial evidence.

Haddad has sought to highlight alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation, particularly concerning the recruitment of state witness Nir Hefetz through a controversial tactic. Although the legal doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" is not firmly established in Israeli law, the defense aims to cast doubt on the evidence obtained, suggesting it was gathered improperly. Mandelblit acknowledged that prioritizing the Prime Minister's case over fully investigating those responsible for the controversial recruitment tactic was a strategic decision to prevent claims of obstruction.

The defense's core strategy revolves around Section 17(a) of the Basic Law: Government, which stipulates that a criminal investigation against the Prime Minister can only be initiated with the Attorney General's consent. The defense is probing whether all necessary approvals were obtained in a timely and documented manner, particularly for evidence gathered before formal consent was granted. They argue that a significant portion of approvals were not properly documented, potentially rendering key evidence inadmissible.

Mandelblit testified that while the law requires consent, it does not mandate it be in writing. He submitted an affidavit in 2021 detailing the approval process. However, Haddad has pressed Mandelblit on the definition of an "investigation" and whether preliminary information gathering also requires explicit approval. The defense is attempting to demonstrate that substantial investigative actions and evidence were collected without the required legal authorization from the Attorney General.

While the "smoking gun" has not yet been presented, the defense team believes they have created significant cracks in the prosecution's case. The ultimate success of this strategy will depend on whether the court accepts the argument that key evidence was obtained in violation of the law, potentially impacting the outcome of the trial.