Judge Questions Prosecutor in Netanyahu Trial Over Illegal Actions
Translated & summarized from Kikar HaShabbat by baba
A legal dispute erupted in the Netanyahu trial as former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified. Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned prosecutor Judith Tirosh's attempt to limit cross-examination regarding alleged illegal actions. The defense seeks to question Mandelblit on actions taken after investigation approvals, while the prosecution wants to restrict the scope to the approval process itself.
The story in 4 lines · by baba
- Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the prosecution's attempt to limit cross-examination of Avichai Mandelblit.
- The dispute in the Netanyahu trial concerns questioning Mandelblit about alleged illegal actions.
- Prosecutor Judith Tirosh argued for limiting the scope of cross-examination to investigation approvals.
- The defense seeks to question the former Attorney General on actions taken after approvals were granted.
A legal confrontation arose during the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The prosecution, represented by prosecutor Judith Tirosh in Case 4000, sought to limit the cross-examination of Mandelblit to the approvals he granted for investigations and the preceding circumstances. Tirosh warned against expanding the inquiry to further questions.
However, Judge Moshe Bar-Am challenged this, asking how one could ignore that the Attorney General was testifying about "illegal actions." Until this point, Mandelblit's cross-examination had focused on actions taken before investigation approvals were granted and the process of granting them. The dispute centered on whether the defense could question him about actions that occurred afterward.
Tirosh argued that the court's duty was to narrow the discussion to essential legal matters. She explained that prosecutors, including senior ones, decide what materials they wish to review, and that the Attorney General's office has teams that examine materials, implying the prosecutor is a body, not an individual. This was intended to clarify that the prosecution's work and oversight of investigation materials are not necessarily handled personally by the Attorney General but by teams within the prosecution system.
Conversely, Judge Bar-Am's question highlighted the difficulty in limiting the cross-examination when the former Attorney General's testimony also touched upon actions he claimed were illegal. The judge's query suggested that the defense should be allowed to explore these alleged illegalities.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 1Right 3Haredi 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
