In the video: Erdan testifies at Netanyahu's trial: "The prime minister spoke to me only once about the reform" (Walla editorial!)
Last week, the head of the panel in the thousands cases, Judge Rivka Friedman Feldman, announced that she was rejecting the defense attorneys' request in the case, and therefore the testimony of Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan will be heard in mid-June in London via video conference – and not in Israel.
Milchan's testimony is considered key testimony in Case 1000, since Milchan was the one who, according to the prosecution, financed the "supply line" of champagne and cigars to the Netanyahus. He himself is expected to testify, but his associates said he was not coming with a "knife between the two" or to settle scores.
Tomorrow, the Jerusalem District Court will hold a hearing at the request of the prime minister's lawyer, Amit Hadad, in which he will ask the court for clarifications on how Milchan's testimony will sound. The reason Milchan will testify in London is because the prosecution has submitted several medical records attesting to the witness's health, which does not allow him to testify in court.
Netanyahu, Milchan (Photo: Flash 90, official website)
However, at the end of March, Haddad, who was joined by Noni Mozes' defense attorney, Naveit Negev, argued that Milchan needed to testify in Israel and that the medical documents were insufficient. The defense argued that Milchan had recently flown from London to the United States, so he could testify in Israel. The defense lawyers' arguments were rejected by the court and Milchan will testify in London.
An interesting issue that is expected to be raised tomorrow is the financing of the expenses of defense attorneys who intend to travel to London, as representatives of the prosecution intend to do. While the prosecution is the one who asked to testify against Milchan in London, the defense wants to travel to London to interrogate him and is expected to seek reimbursement of expenses from the state treasury.
In addition, defense lawyers are expected to ask the court to allow journalists to cover the testimony from inside the courtroom where the testimony will be taken in London, apparently at the Israeli embassy in London.
More in Walla!
10 weeks and swim half an hour rowing easily! TI commit!
CONTRIBUTED BY TI SWIM
"Inability to properly be impressed by the defendant's reactions"
The defense attorneys' main reason for objecting to Milchan's testimony via video conference is their inability to get a direct impression of him, so they will fly to London.
However, in the wake of the COVID-2020 crisis, a team headed by Judge Ruth Lorch, President of the Central District Court, published recommendations at the end of <> regarding the use of visual consultation (video conferencing) in criminal proceedings. The recommendations were submitted to Supreme Court President Esther Hayut, headed by a recommendation to use video calls on a regular basis, while distinguishing between the stages of criminal proceedings.
The report was submitted to Adv. Elad from the legal advisor of the "Success" association, and it reached Walla!. The report itself deals mainly with suspects or defendants, but it can be concluded that the recommendations are good and true for witnesses as well.
"As for evidentiary hearings (the stage at which testimony is heard in a criminal proceeding) which took place in a visual conference with the consent of the parties, some noted that in such hearings the discussion was relevant and effective. There have even been cases in which it was the defendant who requested and preferred hearing the evidence by this means instead of physically bringing him to court. It also noted the ability to use the tool in cases where it is necessary to hear a witness in the absence of the defendant (protected witnesses, a minor victim of a sexual offense). On the other hand, there were many who noted the difficulties that exist in holding a long and substantive discussion of this tool, even when it is done with consent. Among other things, they noted the inability to properly be impressed by the defendant's reactions to hearing the testimonies of the witnesses testifying in his case, as well as the detainee's technical difficulty in reviewing the documents submitted during the hearing."
Another question that arises is whether the defendants in the case, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, will travel to London to hear Milchan. As of this writing, it is unclear whether this will be the case, but an interesting reference in the report to the presence of defendants in taking testimony via video conference was given: "The default in the evidentiary process should be the physical presence of the accused. A judge may allow, with the consent of the accused, the hearing of evidence when the defendant participates in a visual conference. This seems appropriate in cases where "technical" witnesses are involved, the testimony of the defendant himself should not be allowed by visual conference. The defendant's testimony requires physical presence, even if the detainee wishes to hold it in a visual conference."
In other words, according to the report, the defendants need to hear the testimony themselves and not through a video conference. Usually these are defendants who are in custody until the end of the proceedings, but it is not inconceivable that this provision is also true in relation to a situation in which a key witness in the case is heard via video conference.
- news
- News in Israel
- Criminal & Legal News
Tags
- Benjamin Netanyahu
- Arnon Milchan