Prosecutor Warns of Trial Delay Over Document Review in Netanyahu Case

The prosecution in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is warning that the defense's demand to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about the evidence he personally reviewed could lead to a lengthy and complex examination of thousands of internal documents. Deputy State Attorney Judith Tirosh argued in the Jerusalem District Court that Mandelblit was not required to personally read every raw investigation transcript and document before making his decisions, as broad professional teams within the State Prosecutor's Office and the Attorney General's office analyzed the evidence and presented him with summaries.

Tirosh explained that Mandelblit, as the Attorney General, acted as an "entity, not an individual," relying on skilled professionals to analyze investigation materials. She stated that even if Mandelblit did not read certain transcripts in their entirety, it does not mean the content was not examined or considered by the professional staff involved in forming the decision. This process, she noted, is standard practice in criminal cases, where evidence is analyzed by legal teams who then present their findings to the decision-maker.

The defense team, however, is seeking to determine whether the evidence presented to Mandelblit accurately reflected all findings or if crucial exculpatory details were omitted. Netanyahu's lawyers claim significant discrepancies exist between information held by police investigators and materials forwarded to the Attorney General's office, alleging that investigators withheld critical data and provided misleading information. They argue that it cannot be blindly assumed that Mandelblit was aware of every piece of information in the investigation files.

Tirosh countered that if the defense believes certain investigative material was inadequately documented or excluded, the proper course is to address this with the police officers responsible for collecting and documenting the evidence, not by cross-examining the former Attorney General. She warned that acceding to the defense's request to investigate what Mandelblit personally saw or didn't see would open a Pandora's box, forcing the court and parties to delve into thousands of pages of opinions, summaries, internal memos, and correspondence.

The core dispute revolves around whether Mandelblit's decisions were based on a complete factual basis or if crucial data was withheld. The prosecution contends that such an inquiry would shift the trial's focus from the facts of the indictment to the internal workings of the law enforcement system. The court must now decide the extent to which the former Attorney General's examination can be broadened on these issues. During Mandelblit's previous testimony, the defense attempted to prove that various investigative actions lacked proper legal authorization and that exculpatory information, such as data from state witness Shlomo Filber and reports on meetings with businessmen, was not presented to him before the indictment was approved.