developing· Politics· Updated 11:38

Netanyahu Trial Judge Angered by Prosecution's Limits on Testimony

During a hearing in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the prosecution's opposition to allowing the defense to question former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit about alleged illegal investigative actions.

5 newsrooms · 2 languages · since 10:45

Plus

Netanyahu Trial Judge Angered by Prosecution's Limits on Testimony — Illustration by baba

Photos · 2

Photos the newsrooms posted about this story, and the ones the IDF and Magen David Adom released.

Official photos are free. 2 more with Plus.

What happened

01Judge Moshe Bar-Am questioned the prosecution's attempt to limit the cross-examination of former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
02The legal dispute on Wednesday centered on whether the defense could question Mandelblit about alleged illegal investigative actions taken after he granted approvals.
03Mandelblit testified during the proceedings about investigative actions that were allegedly conducted without his prior consent.
04Prosecutor Judith Tirosh argued that expanding the questioning would set a dangerous precedent and that the court should narrow the scope to essential legal matters.
05Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defense team sought to expand their questioning of Mandelblit based on his statements regarding these actions.

The dispute arose as the prosecution, led by Deputy State Attorney Judith Tirosh, sought to limit the cross-examination of Mandelblit to the approvals he granted for investigations and the preceding circumstances. The defense team, which had previously focused its questioning on actions up to the approval stage, sought to expand the inquiry to actions taken after those approvals were granted.

Judge Bar-Am challenged the prosecution's stance, stating that the court could not ignore testimony from Mandelblit regarding investigative actions allegedly conducted without his prior consent. Tirosh argued that allowing such questioning would set a dangerous precedent for future cases, asserting that the court should narrow the discussion to essential legal matters.

Summarized by baba from the reports of 3 newsrooms. Updated 11:28

Latest report: Srugim. Read Srugim’s original