In the case of this case, we debated, and it's not just the prosecutor who filed the indictment, etc., we deliberated at a very high level with the district attorney, and I think it wouldn't have been possible to argue against us too much if we had also accepted a position expressed by some of the people that this is a case that should have been continued to be managed and all the doubts and doubts should have been brought before the court and given the explanations and let the court decide. Finally, because of feelings that were received as a result of events that happened, which were inadmissible in court and that the court would not have known at all, in addition to the other things that were brought before the court, the whole thing told us that we should not continue with this trial.
Counsel for the State further argued that at the time of the filing of the indictment, the prosecution had a proper basis – something that was confirmed in the court's decision to detain the appellant until the end of the proceedings – but later on, after collecting additional evidence and after further consideration of the circumstances of the case, it was decided that it was not appropriate to continue the proceedings. According to counsel for the State, even the second ground set forth in section 80(a) of the Law was not proven , since there were no other circumstances justifying the payment of defense expenses and compensation to the appellant.
- Home-The court rejected the appellant's request for indemnification and compensation, ruling that none of the grounds set forth in the law had been met. In his words:
- We have heard the prosecution's evidence and some of the evidence of the defense, and in our opinion, in this case, none of these conditions have been fulfilled [the conditions that entitle to compensation and indemnification – M. H].
- It should be noted that we were not under the impression that the defendant's version as presented by both the police and the court was true. The evidence has more than one footnote to believe that there was some sexual contact between the defendant and the complainant, which the defendant categorically denied when he claimed that he did not know the complainant at all.
- We will add that the evidence brought by the defendant regarding the alibi claim does not necessarily negate the complainant's version that the defendant committed the act described in the indictment, but only casts doubt on the fact that the act was committed on the date stated. Therefore, prima facie, accepting the defendant's alibi claim in these circumstances does not necessarily mean that the defendant did not commit the offense, but rather that it was not committed on the given day. Nor does it mean that the defendant is flawless.
- As stated, in light of the totality of the evidence in the case, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds justifying granting the motion were met in our case, and therefore we reject it.
- In the margins of our decision, we praise the declaration of the-The force of the accuser is that where at some point in a criminal proceeding, an attorney appearing on her behalf feels that he is not satisfied with the continuation of the argument regarding the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he withdraws the charge and notifies the court thereof. This is a fair approach and should be followed.
- This decision is appealed before us, and the appellant's request is that we oblige both the state and the complainant to pay compensation and indemnification. In his written summaries (on-according to our decision) the appellant reiterates his arguments in the House-The trial judgment applies both to the first cause and to the second ground, emphasizing once again that his acquittal was an absolute acquittal. Yes, validity comes-Power that undermines the words of the House-First Instance Trial Regarding the Evidence Brought Before Him. The State Responded to Ba's Arguments-The appellant's strength in emphasizing that no proper foundation was laid neither for the proof of the first cause nor for the proof of the second cause. As for the alibi claim that he raised-The appellant's argument – an argument that was, as it turns out, the strongest argument raised on behalf of the appellant – the appellant's version was inconsistent. The version was brought up at a relatively late stage of the investigation, and the details of the alibi were also not found to be accurate. Various details provided by the appellant prior to the submission of a reporter-The indictment could not be verified, and at the time of filing a reporter-The home indictment-The trial appeared to be the alibi's claim "as an argument that could be dealt with during the trial." In this context, the State added the following:
Indeed, in retrospect, it is now possible, after the affair ended as it ended, to see the evidence that the prosecution had before the indictment was filed, with a more informed view, and to discern where it would have been appropriate to act differently, to continue to investigate matters that were not examined, to pre-emptively examine other matters, and it is possible that this would have prevented the later course of events. However, this wisdom after the fact does not indicate that the evidence in the prosecution's possession was such that a reasonable prosecutor would have decided that there was no reason to file the indictment...