Jerusalem Court Rejects Defense Bid to Question Former AG Mandelblit
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
The Jerusalem District Court rejected a defense request to further question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in Benjamin Netanyahu's trial. The defense aimed to probe actions by police and prosecution after investigations were approved but before indictment. Judges disagreed on the matter, with one appearing to be in the minority. Lawyers argued that Mandelblit's testimony could reveal procedural flaws, while the prosecution contended that internal work processes are not subject to trial examination. The hearing concluded after two hours.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Jerusalem court denied defense request to further question former AG Avichai Mandelblit in Netanyahu trial.
- Defense argued Mandelblit's testimony could reveal flaws in investigation and indictment process.
- Judges showed rare disagreement, with one appearing to be in the minority.
- Prosecution argued that internal work processes of the AG's office are not subject to trial.
- The hearing concluded after two hours, with the defense adjusting their strategy.
The Jerusalem District Court has denied a request by the defense in the Benjamin Netanyahu trial to further question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. The defense sought to question Mandelblit regarding actions taken by the police and prosecution after he approved investigations against Netanyahu and before the indictment was filed.
The court's decision was made amidst rare disagreement among judges Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Moshe Bar-Am, and Oded Shacham, though the extent of their differing opinions was not disclosed. It appeared, however, that Bar-Am was in the minority.
Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, argued that questioning Mandelblit could potentially lead to the conclusion of the trial. He contended that if the right questions were posed, Mandelblit's testimony could reveal that crucial facts were concealed from him, rendering his administrative decision to indict flawed. Haddad asserted that the prosecution exhibited "tunnel vision" and "overzealousness," leading to exculpatory evidence being discarded during the editing process.
The prosecution, led by Yehudit Tirosh, countered that court proceedings typically do not delve into the internal work processes of the prosecution. Tirosh stated that the Attorney General, like any prosecutor, is presumed to have the full investigation file and that any alleged omissions should be addressed with the investigators, not the AG. She warned against opening a precedent that could allow endless questioning of prosecutors.
However, Judge Bar-Am noted that Mandelblit had already testified, and some of his statements seemed relevant to a "defense from justice" claim, suggesting a factual deficit if not further investigated. Judge Friedman-Feldman also pointed out that Mandelblit had mentioned matters, such as transcripts, that had not been reviewed. The hearing concluded after two hours, with the defense requesting to adjust their planned questioning of Mandelblit based on the judges' directives, a request the prosecution did not oppose.
Mentioned
