Netanyahu’s defense attorneys intend to summon Mandelblit to testify in court, as part of the evidence and hearing of witnesses. The Prime Minister’s defense team intends to conduct a cross – examination of the adviser, among other things on the issuance of permits to open an investigation, after the court ruled that there was a defect in his conduct in the matter. If he refuses to come, the decision will go to the judges, who will determine whether he is obliged to arrive and if so on what matters he can be asked.
As you may recall, yesterday (Monday) the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the evidentiary phase of the Netanyahu trial will begin after the elections on April 5, after the elections. The head of the panel, Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Judge Moshe Bar-Am and Judge Oded Shaham, ruled that the hearings will take place three days a week – on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. As part of this phase, prosecution and defense witnesses will also be heard.
The judges also rejected Netanyahu’s request to dismiss the indictments against him in cases 1000 and 4000 after no evidence was found to open the investigation with the written approval of the Attorney General, as required by the Basic Law. The judges wrote in their decision: “There was no clear cause for dismissing the indictment.
However, the judges criticized the ombudsman’s conduct: “It was appropriate that the counsel, as an administrative authority, give his consent to open investigations (including preliminary investigations), in the defendant’s case, by way of giving written approval. This, although it can be inferred from the screens, his involvement And accompanying the consultant in the investigations, during their management. “
Regarding the motion to dismiss the indictment, they said: “Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the charges should be dismissed, at the preliminary stage of the hearing, in respect of the version of the counsel emerging from the documents, as this is a procedural defect that does not go to the root of the matter.
They added regarding the disqualification of specific evidence: “We are not convinced that the request, in its body, must be required at the preliminary stage of the hearing and findings must be made before the evidence is heard and the evidentiary basis for substantiating the charges has been laid before us.” The judges said that this claim would be examined, but after hearing the evidence. “