Prosecution coughs up ‘missing’ docs to Netanyahu’s defense team
In several fights over these documents, the prosecution said that an additional police review led to the discovery of the six documents in question.
By YONAH JEREMY BOBPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Lawyers Boaz Ben Zur and Amit Hadad arrive to the District Court in Jerusalem for a court hearing as part of the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on December 1, 2020.(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
The state prosecution has turned over six new documents to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defense team as part of his public corruption trial, claiming that it previously did not know the documents existed.In a Tuesday legal brief to the Jerusalem District Court which was only released on Wednesday, the prosecution said that, “due to good faith human error,” the police had not turned the six documents over to the prosecution until now.Netanyahu’s defense team has repeatedly attacked the prosecution for withholding documents which could help in his defense, including documents which would allow them to attack former Netanyahu aide turned top state witness, Nir Hefetz.Although the prosecution had already turned over voluminous documents to the defense regarding Hefetz and other state’s witnesses, the defense has argued that the prosecution has taken too much discretion in deciding which remaining documents it thinks are not relevant to the defense.In several fights over these documents, the prosecution said that an additional police review led to the discovery of the six documents in question.The defense claims this is further proof that the prosecution is withholding documents and cannot be trusted to turn over all relevant documents without a full court review.In its own defense, the prosecution said in its legal brief that none of the six documents actually impacted the case in a substantive way.Rather, the prosecution explained that all of the six documents were from the November 2019 period, while the investigation had mostly ended by mid-2018.This would mean the communications were not part of the investigation itself.In addition, the prosecution said that the documents pertained to communications with Hefetz about the scope of court gag orders related to issues surrounding him, as well as communications in which the police addressed concerns he had about being attacked for being a state’s witness.Accordingly, the prosecution said that the six documents do not actually help the defense case, and the fact that they were withheld by accident does not prove any kind of bad faith.In fact, the prosecution cited a December 1 decision by the court in which the judges granted the defense access to only one of a large volume of documents they had asked for.The prosecution said the court’s ruling proved that it is generally adopting the prosecution’s stance regarding the relevance of documents in dispute.The legal brief also addressed some other more recent defense requests.One request was for a transcript of a newly discovered telephone call between Roi Belcher, lawyer to former Netanyahu aide and state’s witness Ari Harow, and the state prosecution.Netanyahu’s defense lawyers have tried to prove that law enforcement applied undue pressure to certain state’s witnesses.They have also said law enforcement tried to cover-up their allegedly improper actions in acquiring recordings of Netanyahu on Harow’s cell phone which go to the core of Case 2000, the Yediot Ahronot- Yisrael Hayom Affair.The telephone call in question between Belcher and the prosecution only came to the defense’s attention when the state turned over a separate new document in mid-November which referenced the earlier call.The prosecution told the court that it has no record of such a call occurring and that Belcher’s vague reference does not prove that it occurred nor that the prosecution is hiding anything.While it appears that the underlying documents in question do not change the posture of the overall case, the incident again embarrasses the prosecution for not being told by the police about certain documents.Earlier this year, the prosecution had denied it had any documents pertaining to conflict within the Police Investigation Department (PID) about how Hefetz had been treated during his interrogation.Subsequently, after Channel 12’s Amit Segal revealed one such document, the prosecution did a 180-degree turn and said that good faith mis-communications within the PID had led to the document going astray.Although the prosecution’s eventual explanation may turn out to be correct, the repeated incidents of seeming incompetence over missing documents could undermine the public’s faith in the prosecution.Some observers have been surprised that in a case of this magnitude and gravity, involving the prosecution of a sitting prime minister, the prosecution continues to encounter mishaps without permanently fixing them.
