The judges of the Zdorov case brought the reasonable doubt back to life - voila! news

On video: The District Court in Nazareth acquitted Roman Zdorov of the murder of Tair Rada by a majority of two to one (judiciary spokeswoman)

Many words have been written about the reasonable doubt - aka a strange creature living in the criminal world.

The reasonable provider has had ups and downs, mainly downs, when in recent years we have witnessed damage and erosion in his status to the point of wondering if he still exists.

The Zdorov trial restored the concept of "reasonable doubt" to its rightful status, which should be the king of the criminal procedure, as will be explained.

The criminal procedure is essentially different from the other procedures in the field of law.

A presumption in general law says: "He who takes away from his friend the evidence on him".

That is, whoever wants the court to accept his position - he must prove it.

The standard of proof required is a "balance of probabilities".

From a numerical-statistical point of view, it will be explained, for those who need something concrete, the requirement is that the proof resin will exceed 51 percent.

ordinary majority.

The criminal procedure is different.

In the criminal procedure there is a presumption called the presumption of innocence.

That is, every person is innocent - even throughout his trial - until he is convicted in a criminal proceeding.

For the purpose of convicting a person in the criminal trial, a "balance of probabilities" (ordinary majority) is not enough, but the requirement in the law is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Numerically, it is customary to estimate the probability that a person committed the offense at about 97 percent.

A high bar and an almost absolute majority.

On the face of it, this is an almost sacred status of the presumption of innocence.

Practically, many times it seemed that the presumption of innocence (and the reasonable doubt) were on their way to a grave burial.

The Zadorov trial brought with it many upheavals - to the novel itself, to the members of the families involved and to Israeli society as a whole.

In particular, he brought with him an intriguing look at the secret world where the officials in criminal justice are.

The criminal procedure, fundamentally, is not one that determines what the truth is.

He cannot determine this for the reason that all those present at the trial and conducting it, were not where the things happened - they do not know what the truth is.

But they can estimate and speculate, based on testimony and other evidence submitted to the court.

The court, at the end of the procedure, has to determine what (in its opinion) was the truth.

The composition of judges at the District Court in Nazareth (Photo: Reuven Castro)

celebrating his acquittal.

Roman Zdorov (photo: Reuven Castro)

More in Walla!

• Zadorov after the acquittal of the murder of Tair Rada: "The truth won, wants to return home to the children"

• Ilana Rada on the acquittal of Zadorov: "The prosecutor's office murdered my daughter, my war is just beginning"

• The quality water of Eden Water - at your home in a compact and designed water bar

Sometimes, deciding what happened is easy.

There is a gun, caught on the killer, from which a bullet was fired.

There is a bullet that was removed from her body and fits perfectly into the gun.

Apparently, the killer has been found.

However, sometimes, there is a case where a girl was murdered and a man admitted to committing the murder and even repeated it.

But on the other hand, the murder weapon claimed by the accused is the one that actually caused her death.

The evidence seized at the scene does not match the confession of the suspect in the murder and there are other things that make it difficult to decide what (in the opinion of the judges) is the truth.

This is a Zdorov case and that is why it is so difficult to decide.

On the one hand, there are Zadorov's confessions to the murder and a chain of evidence and his behaviors that constitute "criminal" behavior for the prosecution method.

On the other hand, there is a chain of contradictions and doubts that arise when examining the case.

And this is, literally, the place where the reasonable doubt should have its lofty status, carried and hovering above every case and should be the court's compass.

Previous incarnations may have had less evidence or contradictions to raise doubt.

It may be the public clamor and public controversy that raised the doubt.

There is no telling.

Yes, it can be said that the district court in Nazareth returned the reasonable doubt to the throne.

• news

• opinions and interpretations

Tags

• Roman Zdorov

• Tair Rada

• murder

• Court