Yes, the words of the Honorable Justice S. Levin in his book "To be a judge":
"Complex criminal trials are sometimes a kind of detective crossword. The details are always important, but ultimately you as a judge have to form a view of what happened, and this is only the beginning. In the second stage, you should check if your view has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. More than once it happened that I was convinced by logic that the defendant committed the offense attributed to him, but this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a case, I must acquit the defendant" (Shlomo Levin – " Being a Judge" , p. 181 (2009)).
In conclusion
- At the end of the day, we learn that the accuser sought, in fact, to base the accusation on three pillars: accepting the defendant's incriminating statements to the informants, giving weight to their content, and adopting evidence that has the power to serve as an evidentiary addition to the basic evidence that underlies the prosecution's case. However, after it became clear that it would be justified and correct to invalidate the defendant's confession, against the background of the variety of considerations I have listed above, there is no escaping the necessary conclusion that the defendant should be acquitted, due to doubt.
- For the sake of clarity, I added and examined whether the pool of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish a conviction. Even a step in this outline, taking into account the grips that were deployed along this route, led to a result that does not justify the defendant's conviction.
- I did not lose sight of the silence of the defendant throughout his statements, as well as his testimony before the court and the suppressed version that was given by him for the first time; Again, I have come to the conclusion that the existing evidence is not sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt in the offenses attributed to him, beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In this context, the words of the Honorable Justice Barak Erez, in paragraph 11 of her opinion in the Haivatov case, are appropriate, where she ruled:Question marks continue to hover as to the identity of the person who shot him to death in... That evening he was bitter and hasty. However, under the conditions that have been created, it is not possible to impose a criminal conviction on the basis of the evidence before us. This is one of those cases in which it turns out that the use of wholly improper means of interrogation not only violates rights, but also thwarts the purpose of clarifying the truth and enforcing the law."
- Therefore, and in view of all of the above, if my opinion were to be heard, I would recommend to my colleagues that the defendant be acquitted, out of doubt, both with respect to the first charge and with regard to the second charge.
_____________________