Mandelblit Testimony Crucial to Netanyahu Defense's "Defense from Justice" Claim

The testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial is central to the defense's strategy, which aims to argue for "defense from justice." This legal argument, rarely successful due to a high threshold, posits that the indictment or prosecution process fundamentally violates principles of legal fairness and justice. The defense plans to pursue this claim through two avenues: a single egregious act or a cumulative series of actions and omissions by investigators and prosecutors.

Netanyahu's defense team is expected to argue that the investigation involved a severe act of conducting investigative actions without Mandelblit's approval. They also contend that a long series of actions, failures, and events collectively constitute a substantial violation of justice and fairness. The defense views the requirement for the Attorney General's approval for investigations against the Prime Minister, as stipulated in Basic Law: Government, as a cornerstone of democratic regime protection, intended to prevent the politicization of investigations. They argue that initiating investigative actions months before Mandelblit's approval constitutes a constitutional flaw justifying the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, potentially invalidating all evidence obtained as a result.

Beyond the issue of approvals, the defense has raised numerous other allegations against the police and prosecution. These include focusing on incriminating evidence while ignoring exculpatory evidence, interrogating suspects under extreme conditions of hunger and exhaustion, harsh detention conditions, humiliating and illegal searches, improper investigative tactics involving relatives, improper infringement of the right to counsel, disappearance of interrogations, using detention as pressure, failure to transfer crucial evidence to the defense, and a barrage of biased leaks. The defense argues that evidence revealed over the past four years, including police investigators' testimony and Mandelblit's own statements, supports these claims.

While the defense asserts that Mandelblit's testimony aims to establish that the police's actions were so severe that the entire investigation and indictment should be invalidated, they acknowledge that the prosecution will likely argue that these are merely minor procedural flaws. The final decision will depend on the court's balancing of undisputed facts, disputed events, the significance of the indictment, and established legal precedents. The article emphasizes that while there is no evidence of a fabricated case against Netanyahu, the proceedings have revealed significant concerns regarding amateurism, disregard for legal and professional rules, and potentially a conceptual fixation by investigators, necessitating a serious review within the police and prosecution.

Mandelblit himself stated regarding Case 1000 that he approved investigations if there were significant matters, and regarding the investigation of Nir Hefetz, he did not approve a broad question about Netanyahu. Hadas Klein's testimony about cigars and champagne was accepted without challenge, and Shlomo Filber's account of a "guidance call" was questioned regarding its timeline.