The defendant's statements to the police, the preservation of the right to remain silent:
- Another question that knocks on our door is – what weight and implications can be attributed to the defendant's conduct throughout his interrogations with the police, when he maintained his right to remain silent, and yes, what weight should be attributed to his testimony before us when he first gave his version, all this, taking into account the degree of credibility that should be given to the defendant's words, and taking into account the contradictions that arose in his words and explanations thereof.
- First, I will note that the defendant underwent a long series of interrogations. For the most part, he maintained his right to remain silent and except for small details he gave during the interrogation process, he did not open his mouth. The defendant's silence throughout his interrogations was conspicuous, and his conduct even amounted to a "dismissive" attitude, to say the least, toward the interrogators, as I will discuss below. Hence, it is necessary to examine the weight and significance that should be attributed to this conduct of the defendant. In other words, does this conduct indicate his guilt and what weight and significance should be given to it when the court comes to decide the fate of this proceeding?
- Alongside the defendant's silence in the course of his police interrogations (apart from his statements to the informants and some reference to certain details in his statements to the police), his substantive version was given to us for the first time, as part of his main testimony. I will note at this point that the defendant did not leave such a reliable and reliable impression. Yes, it is evident that in the framework of his version, a number of contradictions and questions arose, to which no satisfactory explanation was given. At the same time, it cannot be said that the defendant's version as expressed to the informants is preferable to what he said before us. The first (i.e., his version and his confession to the informants) is invalid, does not correspond to the factual situation in its entirety, and should not be adopted, for the reasons I have enumerated above at length; The second one (i.e., his version before us) is unreliable and full of holes and contradictions, to the point that no findings can be based on it.
On the Right to Remain Silent
- The rule is that the right to remain silent is a basic right of every person (whether as a defendant or as an interrogee) in a criminal proceeding. The right to remain silent derives from the interrogator's duty to clarify to the interrogee immediately at the beginning of the interrogation his right not to incriminate himself and his right to remain silent during the interrogation. A lawful warning includes three elements – clarifying to the interrogee that he is not obligated to provide anything that could incriminate him; Insisting that anything he says may serve as evidence against him and making it clear to the interrogee that refraining from answering the interrogator's questions may strengthen the evidence against him (see also Section 28(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Arrests), 5756 – 1996). By means of the warning regarding the right to remain silent, the interrogator makes sure that the interrogee is aware of his basic right to remain silent, and that "He consciously and willingly waived this right when he gave his statement." (Interest Elzam, para. 7 of Justice Hayut's opinion).
This obligation is intensified when it comes to minors.
- As stated, the defendant maintained his right to remain silent in the initial stages of the interrogation process. When the defendant was brought in for interrogation for the first time, His rights were read to him and the suspicions against him were explained to him, and in his response to the accusation, he claimed as follows: "In the past, I was interrogated in the"R. North also talked about drug trafficking and the interrogators did all kinds of tricks and tactics on me and brought me to a situation where I admit things I didn't do, In addition to all this, I don't trust the police for a very simple reason that I saw on TV about Zadorov's murder and other cases, and from then on I maintain my right to remain silent" (A/77, Lines 12-10). Up Next, Good news 16 Answer: "I'm innocent". From that point onwards, Throughout his range of messages, And there were many of them, As I discussed above, The defendant maintained his right to remain silent.
- More than necessary, I will note that some of the interrogators who testified in the framework of this proceeding expressed their personal opinion regarding the right to remain silent. Thus, for example, the researcher Jihad said: "I think that whoever chooses to maintain the right to remain silent, then he has something to hide, that's my opinion(p. 60 of the transcript, lines 5-6 and later, lines 8-16). The witness stressed that he does not disregard the lawyer's advice, but that he is trying to explain to the defendant why he should speak. According to interrogator Jihad, he constantly explained to the defendant that although it was his right to remain silent, he should speak (p. 61, lines 23-24).
Thus, for example, the words of the interrogator Jihad in his testimony before us (p. 61, lines 9-24):