Caselaw

Serious Crimes Case (Beer Sheva) 63357-03-18 State of Israel – F.M.D. V. Assaf Masoud Suissa - part 91

February 15, 2021
Print

According to the accuser, from the totality of the evidence brought by her, it was proven that the defendants murdered the deceased deliberately, after planning and carrying out preparatory actions, and without any provocation on the part of the deceased; In such a way that even after Amendment 137 to the law, they can be convicted of the offense of murder in aggravated circumstances.

The accuser relies mainly on the incriminating versions of the defendants, as given in their police interrogations, in which each of them described the incident in detail; When, with the exception of a few points, for which each of them tried to blame the other in an attempt to save himself (mainly on the question of who was the initiator and motive of the event that struck the deceased first, and who was dragged after him), they gave an almost identical factual story.  According to the accuser's counsel, the detailed statements of the defendants in the police are consistent with each other and reinforce each other; And the additional independent evidence presented also strengthens their statements, so that there is no reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

According to the accuser, the defendants' new version, which was first given only in the defense case, should be rejected, as it is unreliable; The defendants' arguments regarding the admissibility and weight of their statements to the police must be rejected; and to prefer their statements to the police over their testimony in court.

On the other hand, counsel for the defendants argued that the statements of defendant 2 to the police were inadmissible, neither as external statements of a defendant in relation to him or as statements of a witness regarding defendant 1; They were collected in violation of his right to consult with a lawyer, beginning with his first interrogation and even more so from the time of his conversation with the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit, and using improper interrogation exercises that led him to give a false version in order to extricate himself and incriminate Defendant 1.

Previous part1...9091
92...202Next part