Senior Lawyer Zion Amir Shocked by Mandelblit Testimony, Calls for Trial Dismissal
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Senior lawyer Zion Amir criticized law enforcement's conduct during former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's testimony in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial. Amir suggested that findings presented by Netanyahu's lawyer could warrant dismissing the entire case, citing potential violations of natural justice and improper evidence gathering. He also highlighted concerns about alleged leaks of confidential information and the lack of investigations into them. Amir believes these cumulative flaws might lead to the trial's termination.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Senior lawyer Zion Amir believes findings in the Netanyahu trial could justify dismissing the entire case.
- Amir criticized alleged pre-publication editing of a news report by former Attorney General Mandelblit.
- He cited legal grounds for trial dismissal due to violations of justice and fairness principles.
- Amir also raised concerns about alleged leaks of confidential information from law enforcement.
- He argued that failing to get prior approval invalidates investigations against a prime minister.
Senior lawyer Zion Amir has sharply criticized the conduct of law enforcement in the aftermath of the fourth day of Avichai Mandelblit's testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Amir stated that findings presented by Amit Haddad, Netanyahu's lawyer, could justify the dismissal of the entire trial.
Amir specifically addressed testimony regarding a news report being submitted for Mandelblit's review before publication, in a case unrelated to Dana Weiss. He expressed disbelief, suggesting the former Attorney General received and edited a story prior to its release. "This is inconceivable. Simply inconceivable," Amir remarked, clarifying this instance involved a different Channel 12 journalist.
Amir emphasized that the core legal argument extends beyond the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. He cited Section 149(10) of the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows a court to nullify an indictment if the prosecution violates fundamental principles of justice and fairness. "When there is outrageous conduct by the authority that contradicts principles of natural justice," he explained, "then a court can, for reasons of defense from justice, cancel the entire proceeding, not just evidence."
Beyond the 'defense from justice' argument, Amir also noted the possibility of disqualifying evidence obtained by infringing on suspects' rights, referencing the Issacharov ruling. However, he stressed the greater importance of the authority to initiate an investigation against a prime minister. He argued that failing to obtain prior approval from the Attorney General, as mandated by the Basic Law: Government, invalidates any subsequent investigation.
Furthermore, Amir raised concerns about alleged leaks of confidential information by individuals obligated to maintain secrecy, including Prime Minister's drivers and law enforcement officials. He asserted that disseminating information obtained in an official capacity without legal justification constitutes a criminal offense. Amir also criticized the lack of investigations into these leaks, suggesting it enables their continuation. He believes these issues are not isolated incidents but indicate a broader pattern aimed at obtaining evidence against Netanyahu through improper means to end his premiership. Amir is convinced that the accumulation of flaws highlighted by the defense could lead to significant legal conclusions, including the termination of the proceedings under the 'defense from justice' doctrine.
