Court throws out case due to unlawful interrogation

A Petah Tikva Magistrate’s Court throws out an accused's confession because police violated his rights.

November 7, 2012 23:27
1 minute read.

Gavel from Reuters 370. (photo credit: REUTERS/Chip East)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user uxperience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew, Ivrit
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Repor
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

A Petah Tikva Magistrate’s Court decision to throw out an accused’s confession on the grounds that the police had violated his rights – by declining to explain them to him and by telling him he would be freed only if he confessed – was announced by the court on Wednesday.

The decision itself, regarding Moshe Cholaker’s confession, was issued last Thursday.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

According to the indictment, in Lod on March 16, 2010, the accused stripped off his pants and displayed himself publicly in a sexually indecent manner in front of nearby minors.

These allegations were based on a confession made by the accused to police during his interrogation.

However, the defense later denied the confession and claimed that Cholaker only confessed because he was told that if he refused to, he would be held indefinitely, whereas if he confessed he would be freed.

In addition, the accused claimed that when he was initially questioned he was not informed of his rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal representation.

Cholaker said that his confession was given to a second investigator, after the first had convinced him to confess; and that only the second discussion was recorded by the police.

The state argued that there was only one transcript and one interrogation, and that the transcript showed no irregularities.

However, the court found the accused’s version more believable because there were irregularities prior to the interrogation.

The arresting officer admitted that he did not fill out an initial report regarding the arrest, and could not explain why. This officer also admitted that the one report which he did prepare regarding the arrest, was prepared hours later than usual, but he was unable to explain why.

The court surmised that the delay in preparing the report occurred because the officer did in fact perform an improper, off-the-record interrogation in which he pressured Cholaker to confess in the later interrogation.

Since the accused expressed no doubt about his version of events and the officer said he could not remember or really specifically deny the account, the judge declared the confession inadmissible.

Although technically the state could still try to convict the accused with other evidence, the loss of the confession undermines the heart of the state’s case and leaves the police open too serious criticism.

Related Content

August 31, 2014
Rioting resumes throughout east Jerusalem Saturday night