Judge Questions Legality of Investigation Actions in Netanyahu Trial

During a hearing in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Judge Moshe Bar-Am expressed significant difficulty in ignoring testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit regarding investigative actions allegedly conducted without his approval. The judge stated, "I am not sure the court can ignore a version that testifies to illegal actions." This statement came amid a legal dispute between Netanyahu's defense team and the prosecution over the scope of questioning Mandelblit, who had already testified for seven sessions.

The prosecution, led by Deputy State Attorney Judith Tirosh, argued against allowing the defense to question Mandelblit on the decision-making processes that led to the indictment, asserting his former status as AG did not warrant such scrutiny. However, Judge Bar-Am intervened, highlighting Mandelblit's own testimony about investigative actions carried out without his prior consent as a major obstacle to the prosecution's position. He noted that Mandelblit had actively provided a factual account of these actions, suggesting a potential basis for a "defense from justice" claim.

Bar-Am emphasized that this was not a theoretical debate about the defense's right to question prosecution officials, but a concrete situation where the former AG himself had testified about controversial actions during his tenure. The defense, represented by attorney Amit Haddad, argued that Mandelblit's testimony revealed exceptional findings, including actions taken in the dark without his knowledge and alleged pressure on investigators, which necessitate deeper investigation. Haddad also revealed that the defense possesses official documents from Mandelblit detailing his inquiries and the responses he received, which he claims contradict later evidence.

Conversely, Tirosh maintained a firm stance, warning against setting a dangerous precedent that could open the door to extensive investigations into prosecutors' decision-making. She argued that allowing the defense to delve into Mandelblit's subjective knowledge of every document or decision would lead to an endless and exhausting examination of thousands of pages of internal materials. The prosecution contended that the defense should rely on existing investigation materials and police testimonies without probing Mandelblit's personal state of mind at the time of each decision.

The hearing's outcome, particularly the court's decision on whether to permit broader questioning of Mandelblit, could significantly shape the future course of the Prime Minister's trial. If the court sides with the defense, it could allow for an unprecedented examination of the Attorney General's office's internal processes, potentially providing the defense with evidence for their "defense from justice" claim.