Judge Notes Irregularities in State Witness Negotiations During Trial
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
During a trial in Jerusalem, Judge Moshe Bar-Am highlighted irregularities in the questioning of state witness Ari Harow, noting that Harow was allowed legal counsel during an open testimony. Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged early contact regarding the matter but had hazy recollections of timelines. The defense argues these unusual circumstances and prior negotiations for a state witness deal were not fully disclosed, potentially impacting the investigation's legality.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am noted unusual circumstances regarding legal counsel for state witness Ari Harow.
- Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit had limited recall of early negotiations for Harow's testimony.
- Harow was offered legal consultation during an open testimony, not a cautioned interrogation.
- The defense claims prior state witness negotiations were not fully disclosed.
- The judge's comments support the defense's argument of special treatment for Harow.
During the fifth day of testimony in the Jerusalem District Court, Judge Moshe Bar-Am pointed out unusual circumstances surrounding the questioning of state witness Ari Harow. Lawyer Amit Haddad presented transcripts from Harow's July 2016 interrogation, where he was offered legal counsel before answering any questions, despite the session being an open testimony, not a cautioned interrogation. Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged remembering an early contact with Shai Nitzan regarding the matter but had difficulty recalling specific timelines.
Lawyer Haddad questioned why Harow was permitted legal consultation during an open testimony, referencing testimony from police officer Koresh Bernor that indicated Mandelblit was involved in determining the interrogation's framework. Mandelblit responded that he couldn't recall if he approved the legal consultation. Haddad argued this detail was exceptional and demonstrated the Attorney General's significant involvement in setting interrogation terms.
Judge Bar-Am intervened, stating that allowing legal consultation in such a setting suggested "unusual circumstances." Mandelblit conceded this was possible and reasonable, though he did not recall all details. Haddad pressed whether this arrangement stemmed from prior negotiations with Harow's lawyer concerning a state witness agreement. Mandelblit recalled an initial inquiry to Shai Nitzan but was unsure when negotiations began or the extent of investigators' involvement.
Haddad presented a segment from Harow's interrogation where investigator Momi Meshulam suggested Harow consult with his lawyer, stating, "Balcher will come, consult with him, there's no problem. We would never harm a quarter of your rights." Meshulam also alluded to potentially linking Harow's testimony to other matters.
Haddad contended this exchange indicated negotiations for a state witness deal occurred before Harow began answering questions, and that the defense did not receive all relevant materials regarding these negotiations, hindering their ability to assess the proceedings' legality. The prosecution, represented by lawyer Gildin, argued against requiring the former Attorney General to recall every detail of the investigation or negotiations. However, Judge Bar-Am clarified that actions exceeding authorized limits would be relevant. The prosecution agreed that deviations from authorization were relevant but distinguished this from scrutinizing every detail of the investigation's management.
Mentioned