When it was presented to him by the court that the deceased had already been in his car twice and had not taken out a weapon from him, so that the scenario that the defendant feared did not materialize, the defendant replied: "He ran to the car while threatening my life, while telling me, 'You're dead.' So I imagined that these threats were like this was something he was going to carry out now, he was going to get something out of the car in order to finish the story" (p. 597 of Pruitt, paras. 14-17).
- The defendant emphasized that he and the deceased did not jump out of their cars at the same time, but that the defendant got out of his car only after he saw that the deceased was opening the car door and intending to get out of the car. The defendant described that the deceased stopped his car on the right side of the road, half on the side of the road and half on the right lane. The defendant stopped his car parallel to the deceased's car, in the middle of the road, half in the right lane of the road and half in the left lane. Hence, there was a gap of about half a lane between the two vehicles. After the deceased advanced in the direction of the defendant, the defendant jumped out of his car, cocked the weapon and fired in the air. The defendant noted that due to the speed and pressure he was subjected to, he forgot to put his car into a parking position and the car began to slowly advance to the side of the road. After the defendant fired in the air, the deceased returned to his car and then the defendant approached him to make sure he was driving away and fired again in the air.
- The defendant was presented with the fact that this description of the defendant was inconsistent with what he had stated in his first police interrogation, according to which as soon as the deceased got out of his car, he advanced and reached the defendant's car, when beatings began between them. The defendant replied that in his first interrogation he was very confused about the order of events and thus remembered the event at that moment. Later, after remembering the details, he reconstructed and watched a video documenting the incident, he made things more precise. The defendant clarified that there was no meeting between him and the deceased near the defendant's car and that the first meeting between them was near the deceased's car. The defendant denied that he was the one who attacked the deceased, as indicated by the testimony of the witness Asa Gyari. In this context, he argued that striving for contact is not an assault.
- The defendant was referred to the fact that in his first interrogation with the police, he was asked why he did not leave the scene and replied that he was a man and the deceased was a man. In this context, the defendant explained that he meant that he did not run away because he had been raised all his life to strive for contact and neutralize the threat. The deceased was also referred to the fact that in his first interrogation he did not mention shooting in the air and did not report that when the deceased ran to his car he threatened him, "Now you are dead." The defendant replied that he was very confused, as is also evident from the reenactment video he had performed, and that he was sure that he had already told everything that had happened in the incident. The defendant clarified that the deceased told him the threatening sentence while disconnecting from him after the struggle on the floor and began to run to his car. According to the defendant, he is sure that the deceased had some kind of assault weapon in his car, but apparently he was removed from the vehicle after the incident, by one of the many people who were walking around the scene.
- The defendant confirmed that according to his version, during the struggle on the floor he did not hear the gunfire and did not feel the gun flinch. After the deceased was hit by two bullets, the deceased began shouting "Now you are dead", broke away from the defendant and ran towards the car. At this point, the defendant began to feel that his life was in danger, stood up and shot the deceased. It was claimed before the defendant that he did not seem surprised at all when he was told by the interrogators in his third interrogation (P/7) that the shooting of the deceased was carried out from the front and not from behind, as they had initially believed. The defendant confirmed that he was not surprised and explained this by saying that in his second interrogation he was shown the video documenting the incident and Investigator Sameh showed him that during the struggle bullets were discharged, and therefore, the defendant imagined that this was the case. The defendant clarified that he did not think in his second interrogation that he had hit the deceased during the struggle on the floor. However, because the interrogator showed him in the video that there had been gunfire during the struggle, this data was consistent with what was presented to him in his third interrogation regarding the findings of the pathological opinion. However, he emphasized that these findings surprised him because, as stated, he believed that the deceased was not injured by the gunfire that was carried out during the struggle, but rather by the bullet that the defendant fired at the deceased while he was moving away from him in the direction of his car. The defendant insisted that he did not change his version and explained that he had said in his third interrogation that bullets had apparently been fired, because he knew, as far as he was concerned, that he had not shot the deceased during the stage of the struggle. Therefore, if the deceased was shot from the front, the only possibility is that it was a bullet emission.
0
- The defendant stated that he did not notice the shooting during the struggle because he focused on preventing the deceased from snatching his gun, thinking that if the deceased snatched the gun, he would shoot the defendant. The defendant explained that his finger was on the trigger because the deceased surprised him and jumped on it after the defendant had finished firing in the air and his finger was still inside the trigger reserve. The defendant was presented with the fact that a few seconds had passed between the end of the shooting in the air and the moment he began to struggle with the deceased, so that he could have pulled his finger off the trigger. The defendant replied that he tried to deter the deceased by firing in the air.
- The defendant denied that the door of the deceased's car was slammed on him as a result of the deceased trying to close the door while the defendant was standing next to his car, and emphasized that there was only a slight movement of the door. The defendant denied that he had been hit by the door, or that the door had touched him.
- The defendant noted that the death of the deceased was a tragic result of the incident, but that the death of the deceased was caused by the fault of the deceased, who tried to snatch the gun from the defendant and kill him. He also emphasized that if the deceased had not attacked him, he would not have died. The defendant denied the claim that he wanted to harm the deceased at all stages of the incident, and claimed that he did everything possible not to harm him. He also emphasized that he could have shot and injured the deceased during the entire incident, but did not do so, but instead fired in the air. The defendant denied the claim that his lack of remorse for the death of the deceased, his reactions to his death as part of his police interrogations, and the shooting he fired at his back at the end of the incident, show that he intended to kill the deceased.
- The defendant claimed that his statements showed that he knew that during the struggle he fired two bullets at the deceased. This was presented to him, because already at the scene he had told the police that he should have "given him a couple of shots." The defendant replied that he was referring to the bullets he fired at the deceased's back. Because he was afraid that he had fired three shots at the deceased, he said he shot him about two times. He also explained that after it became clear that he had emptied an entire magazine during the incident, he feared that if he said that he had fired three bullets, it would be interpreted as indiscriminate shooting. The defendant was also presented with the fact that in his first interrogation with the police (P/2), he told the police that the deceased "received two bullets." The defendant replied that if this claim had been true, he would have said that the deceased had received five pills and not two.
- The defendant was also referred to the statement of the Chief of Security Yaniv Ben Shimol, in which he stated that the defendant told him in the field in real time that he and the deceased were beaten, the deceased was lying on top of him, he had no choice and the defendant shot him. The defendant replied that he had explained to Yaniv in a few words what had happened, but that what he had said to Yaniv did not constitute a complete description of the incident. When it was argued before the defendant that the description he gave Yaniv exactly matched what actually happened in the incident, i.e., that the deceased was above the defendant and the defendant shot him, the defendant replied that there was no connection between the two things, and that it was only by chance that it sounded as if his intention was to describe the specific circumstances of the incident. In this context, the defendant was also presented with the fact that Kristina also stated in her statements to the police that the defendant told her that after the deceased knocked him to the ground, he shot him. The defendant replied that this was a concise description of the incident and that he meant that after they fell to the ground, he got up and shot the deceased. The defendant rejected the claim that these and other statements indicate that he told the truth before he realized that it would get him into trouble.
- In his re-examination, the defendant was asked to address the claim that the defendant knew that he had shot the deceased at point-blank range during the struggle, but he concealed this and claimed that he shot him in self-defense when he moved away from him. The defendant rejected the claim and said that there was no logic in it. He also explained that if he was indeed aware of the firing of the two bullets, it would be more logical to raise the claim of self-defense in the context of the deceased's attempt to snatch the weapon during the struggle on the floor, than to claim that he shot someone from behind while he was moving away from him in self-defense.
Marcus Daniel Finkelstein:
- See in this context pp. 647-651 of the minutes of the hearing of October 22, 2025. The witness is the defendant's brother-in-law, married to the defendant's sister Kristina.
- In his testimony, the witness said that on the morning of the incident, the defendant asked Kristina to buy him beer, because he did not have a license. At his request, she left the house and brought the defendant a beer. The witness explained that the house in which the family lived was split, with the witness and his wife living on the top floor, while the defendant and his parents lived on the lower floor. At around 5:00 P.M.-5:30 P.M., the witness and Kristina went down to the park with their toddler daughter, and saw that the witness's mother-in-law's car was not in the parking lot. When the witness entered the house, he saw that his mother-in-law was at home and asked her where the car was. His mother-in-law realized that the car was not in the parking lot, called the defendant, asked where the defendant was, and asked him to return. The defendant arrived home within 10 minutes, agitated, with torn clothes, wounds on his chest and his hair scattered. They asked the defendant what had happened and he replied that he had a fight with someone and gave him a bullet. The defendant asked Kristina to return to the scene so that they wouldn't say he had left the guy, and they drove there quickly.
- The witness explained that the defendant had been in possession of the gun for about two and a half or three months before the incident, due to the security situation at the time, and used to carry the gun on it. The witness stated that the defendant did not tell him where or when he gave the bullet to that guy and noted that it was a conversation of less than a minute and then the defendant and Kristina drove away and the witness stayed at home with the girl. A minute later, the witness called Kristina to check on what was happening and she answered him crying, saying that the boy was being resuscitated and hung up. The witness tried to call her and again and again, until a policewoman answered him. At this point, the witness and his father-in-law drove to the scene.
- In his cross-examination, the witness stated that the defendant is like his brothers, they have been in family ties for 13 years, they do almost everything together, support each other and help each other. The witness defined the level of acquaintance between him and the defendant as excellent. The witness confirmed that he did not hear the exchange between the defendant and Kristina, and that the defendant did not tell the witness any other details beyond what the witness gave in his main testimony. He also confirmed that he was interrogated by the police the morning after the incident and that at that stage he did not know why the defendant had taken Kristina to the scene. Today, in retrospect, the witness knows that the defendant did it because he was in the negative. The witness clarified that this was only a guess and that to this day he has not asked his wife why the defendant took her to the scene. The witness denied that the defendant was using drugs, even after it was alleged that the defendant's testimony, as well as Kristina's testimony, suggests otherwise.
Discussion and Decision:
- As stated, the indictment accuses the defendant of committing the offense of murder, along with offenses of driving while disqualified, drunk driving (two offenses), obstruction during interrogation, and willful sabotage of a vehicle.
From the defendant's response to the indictment, as well as from the arguments of his counsel in his summaries and throughout the entire proceeding, it emerges that the defendant did not dispute the commission of the offenses accompanying the offense of murder, and therefore, these do not require a decision and the defendant should be convicted of committing these offenses on the basis of his confession (I will address this issue again at the end of the judgment). The dispute between the parties concerns the offense of murder attributed to the defendant, where, according to the accuser, the defendant killed the deceased intentionally. On the other hand, according to the defendant's counsel, the defendant lacked the mental element necessary to be convicted of murder, where the two bullets that led to the death of the deceased were ejected from the defendant's pistol during a struggle, during which the deceased tried to snatch the gun from the defendant. Hence, according to him, we are dealing with an act that was done without the defendant having control over his physical movements and is therefore protected under the caveat regarding the permanent "lack of control" In section 34g to the Penal Law. In this situation, according to the defendant's counsel, the defendant should be acquitted of the offense of murder attributed to him, at least out of doubt.