Netanyahu Trial Could See Turning Point Over Investigation's Start, Lawyer Argues
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Attorney Sassi Gz believes the Netanyahu trial could pivot on whether the investigation began before former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit granted approval. Gz argued that proving the investigation's premature start could lead to an acquittal. He also discussed the legal implications of alleged improper investigative tactics and the approval of the amended indictment, but stressed the timing of the investigation's launch as the most critical factor for the defense.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Attorney Sassi Gz suggests Netanyahu's trial could turn on the investigation's start date.
- Gz argues proving the investigation began before approval could lead to acquittal.
- The defense is focused on whether the Attorney General granted prior approval.
- Alleged improper investigative tactics could support a "defense from justice" claim.
- Gz called the prosecution's decision to call Yehuda Weinstein a "mistake."
- The timing of the investigation's start is the most critical issue for the defense.
Attorney Sassi Gz, representing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggested a potential turning point in the ongoing trial, focusing on the timing of the investigation's launch. Gz analyzed the testimony of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, arguing that if it can be proven the investigation began before Mandelblit granted the required approval, it could lead to an acquittal.
Gz distinguished between two legal issues: whether alleged improper investigative actions could establish a "defense from justice" claim, and crucially, whether the investigation against Netanyahu commenced before the Attorney General's explicit prior approval, as mandated by law. "If they prove that he did not give approval at the start of the investigation, and the investigation began long before, the defense has real chances," Gz stated, emphasizing that the law explicitly requires advance approval.
The defense attorney also commented on the prosecution's decision to call Yehuda Weinstein, a former Attorney General, to testify, calling it a "mistake" that opened the door for Mandelblit's testimony. Gz believes the court should have limited the scope of the investigation, noting that the lengthy trial has seen no single witness testify for the entire duration, which he feels would lead to an overload in the Israeli justice system.
Regarding alleged improper investigative tactics, Gz explained that while individual questionable actions might not be grounds for dismissal, a pattern of such actions could potentially support a "defense from justice" claim if it significantly prejudiced the defendant's rights and ability to defend himself. However, he described this as a difficult claim to prove, noting that even in other major criminal cases, problematic investigative actions do not automatically invalidate the proceedings.
Gz also addressed questions raised by Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, concerning the approval of the amended indictment, particularly whether Mandelblit reviewed all details and if his signature, potentially a copy, met legal requirements. Nevertheless, Gz reiterated that the most significant issue for the defense remains the timing of the investigation's commencement and whether it received proper legal authorization.