Court Limited Defense Questions During Mandelblit's Examination in Netanyahu Trial

What the Parties Disputed in Court

Netanyahu's attorney, Amit Hadad, sought to clarify what Mandelblit knew about the investigators' actions, whether he received information about them, and how he responded. In particular, the defense intended to address an investigative tactic involving an associate of Nir Hefetz. Yehudit Tirosh, the prosecutor in Case 4000, objected to this line of questioning.

The Prosecution's Position

Tirosh argued that Mandelblit should be questioned about his authorization to open a preliminary inquiry or investigation, rather than about possible flaws in specific investigative actions. In her view, the defense could present its claims concerning such flaws in its closing arguments, after which the court would examine them. The prosecution agreed to Mandelblit's testimony because the authorization he gave to open the investigation was not documented in writing in real time.

Why the Court Limited the Examination

Hadad relied on a memorandum by Mandelblit stating that he had approved most of the substantive investigative actions. However, Mandelblit explained that he did not regard these later approvals as part of the obligation established by the Basic Law to authorize the opening of a preliminary inquiry or investigation. The judges then upheld the prosecution's objection and required the defense to move to another subject.

What Remains Undecided

This decision concerns the permissible scope of the witness's examination, not Netanyahu's guilt or innocence. The source does not report the final outcome of the criminal proceeding. The case number and the court's official name are also not specified in the article.

Latest legal news

• Netanyahu Discussed Election Integrity With Police Chief Despite Warnings
• Netanyahu’s Defense Seeks Remote Testimony From James Packer
• Police chief threatens High Court petition over delayed budget
• Mandelblit to testify for five consecutive days in Case 1000