Judge Clashes With Prosecution Over Legality of Investigation Tactics

During the trial of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, an unusual confrontation occurred between Judge Moshe Bar-Am and prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh. On the eighth day of testimony from former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, Bar-Am questioned why the investigation into Mandelblit's actions should be limited, especially after Mandelblit himself testified about potentially illegal investigative procedures. "How can we ignore that the Attorney General came here and testified about illegal actions?!" the judge exclaimed.

Mandelblit's testimony, particularly under cross-examination by Netanyahu's attorney Amit Haddad, raised questions about the conduct of the police and prosecution during the investigations. The former AG confirmed that investigative actions, including wiretapping an associate of Netanyahu, Nathan Achel, were carried out without his explicit approval, though he did order the wiretap stopped. He also criticized an investigative tactic used against state witness Nir Hefetz. The defense argues that crucial information was withheld from Mandelblit and that illegal procedures were employed.

Despite Judge Bar-Am's objections, the majority of the three-judge panel, led by Presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman and including Judge Oded Shaham, decided to limit further questioning. The scope of the inquiry will primarily focus on the approvals Mandelblit granted for initiating investigations, rather than the internal workings of the prosecution's office. Judge Bar-Am, in the minority, argued that Mandelblit's testimony had already opened the door to a deeper examination of these matters.

The decision to limit the scope led Netanyahu's defense to request an early adjournment to prepare their case, ending the court session ahead of schedule. This development follows previous testimony days where Mandelblit frequently stated he could not recall details from about a decade ago, including which recordings were presented to him before approving investigative steps and the circumstances under which Ari Harow was granted state witness status.

Mandelblit maintained that he approved the initiation of investigations against Netanyahu and that his personal approval was not required for every action taken by investigators. The prosecution, represented by Tirosh, argued that the examination of the former AG should not devolve into an unlimited review of all investigative actions and internal decision-making processes. Tirosh stated that court rulings generally limit the ability to question prosecutors about their work and that a distinction must be made between the AG's approval to open an investigation and subsequent actions taken after approval is granted.

The dispute could have implications for the defense's argument of "defense from justice," which claims severe flaws in law enforcement conduct prejudiced the fairness of the criminal proceedings. Such a claim, if proven, could lead to legal remedies or even the dismissal of charges, but requires demonstrating specific flaws and their consequences. Judge Bar-Am's sharp questions, however, are expected to continue to resonate, even after the majority ruling restricted their further exploration during Mandelblit's testimony.