The dispute revolves, mainly, around the question of the identity of the person who fired at the complainant, who, according to the accuser, was intended to murder him, and at the end of the day caused him severe injuries to his body, as described in the indictment.

Summary of the accuser's arguments

6. The accuser, through attorney Rotem Neumann Wasserman, argued that the totality of the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the defendant as the person who shot the complainant and fled the scene, as described in the facts of the indictment. It was argued that the identity of the defendant as the person who carried out the shooting was proven by materials seized from security cameras that were placed at the entrance to the defendant's home, near the playground and in nearby streets, documenting the shooter's trajectory and the events of the shooting incident.  It was argued that the defense's arguments regarding the admissibility of the materials seized by security cameras in the absence of a judicial order should be rejected, since it has been proven that the search of the cameras was carried out in circumstances in which the owner's informed consent, which according to case law constitutes a source of authority, and in any event, the evidence should not be disqualified, but its weight should be determined.  It was claimed that the defendant was identified in one of the videos, following which the police arrived at the defendant's home, where a lawful search was conducted in the warehouse and in his home, and clothes, a helmet, a bicycle and a delivery bag with identical marks to the objects seen in the defendant's footage near the scene of the incident were seized.  It was alleged that there were bullet marks on the defendant's hair, hands, and clothes, as well as on his delivery bag and helmet, which correspond to ammunition seized at the scene.  It was claimed that there was no basis for the claim that the seizures were contaminated and that "secondary transfer" of gunshot remnants in the process of transporting and sampling them was lacking.  It was claimed that the complainant provided identifying details in his testimony taken at the hospital, including the name and nickname of the defendant, and that the motive of the act is to add to all the evidence.  It was argued that the defendant's statements to the police officers at the time of his arrest constituted a first confession of the acts attributed to him, while his version did not raise an alibi claim other than a general denial.  It was argued that the defendant's silence during his interrogations constitutes reinforcement of the accusing evidence.  With regard to the offense of possession of a knife, it was argued that the defendant's claim that he held the knife for a legitimate purpose was not proven.  The prosecution's arguments, these and others, will be taken into account in an analysis of all the evidence and arguments in the judgment on its merits.

Summary of the defense's arguments

7. The defendant, through Attorney Avishag Cohen-Ben Natan, argued that the evidentiary basis presented by the accuser does not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore he should be acquitted of the offenses attributed to him in the indictment. It was argued, inter alia, that the evidentiary basis presented by the accuser does not indicate the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the offense.  It was claimed that the police failed to pollute the scene, committed investigative failures, and failed to collect evidence leading to their waste - both in relation to object evidence and in relation to the collection of videos from the security cameras.  It was claimed that the complainant remained silent and that in addition to the difficulties in taking his statement at the hospital, an attempt was made by the police to tie and plant in the complainant's version the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the shooting.  It was claimed that no motive was presented by the defendant for shooting the complainant.  It was alleged that there were failures in the manner of evidence collection and contamination of evidence, which harmed the expert opinion on behalf of the prosecution with regard to the identification of the remnants of gunfire at the defendant and his belongings, so that it is not impossible that this was a secondary transfer of gunshot remnants to the seized objects, which are in any case invalid.  The defense's arguments, these and others, will be taken into account in an analysis of all the evidence and arguments in the judgment on its merits.

Discussion and Decision

8. Criminal law requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant on the basis of an acceptable and sufficient evidentiary basis, which proves the facts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does not have the burden of proving the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court must be convinced that the guilt was proven in accordance with this burden as a condition for conviction. At the core of this rule is a moral ruling, which recognizes the power of a criminal conviction, the social stigma and the punishments that accompany it, and further recognizes the limitations of the factual clarification process in court, which is naturally carried out retroactively, on the basis of evidence brought before the court.  In this way, preference is given to a situation in which a person who committed an offense is acquitted due to difficulties of proof, rather than a situation in which a person is convicted of no fault of his own (Section 3422(a) to the Penal Law; Criminal Appeal 6295/05 Vaknin v.  State of Israel (25.01.2007); P Gross and M.  Orkabi "beyond reasonable doubt" The Campus of Law A 229 (2001)).
9. The indictment recounts a difficult case, mainly an attempted murder of a man in the heart of the city of Tel Aviv, at noon, while the victim was in a playground with his pregnant wife and toddler son. This act and the other acts detailed in the indictment were attributed to the defendant, who for his part did not deny his acquaintance with the complainant, the victim of the attempted murder, who was seriously injured and required significant and prolonged medical treatment, but denied all the acts and offenses attributed to him in the indictment, and therefore a wide area of controversy opened before us.  For the purpose of the discussion and decision, I will review the legislative basis for all the elements of the offenses required for conviction, I will examine in detail the sequence of events detailed in the indictment, I will review the main points of the relevant testimonies, evidence, and arguments, and I will demand factual determinations and conclusions.
10. I will preface the beginning, and I will note that after I have been impressed by the arguments of the parties, by the testimonies and evidence presented on behalf of the parties, by the totality of the circumstances of the case, and by the signs of truth and falsehood that have been discovered in relation to the witnesses, and above all the testimonies of the complainant and the accused, along with all the many pieces of evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the accuser has laid down sufficient evidentiary mass for the purpose of establishing incriminating findings for the defendant's obligation, which justify his conviction for all the offenses attributed to him in the indictment, to the extent of certainty required in the criminal trial. The defense, on the other hand, did not raise reasonable doubt as to the strength necessary to extricate the defendant from conviction in light of the incriminating testimonies and evidence that closed in on him, while the defendant's testimony was found to lack its credibility and credibility.
11. The defendant is charged with the following offenses: attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm under aggravated circumstances, carrying and transporting a weapon illegally, and possession of a knife for an improper purpose.

I will first review the elements of an attempted murder offense, which are required for a conviction to commit it, and then I will examine whether these elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attempted murder offense

12. Offense of Attempted murder Defined In section 305(1) The Penal Law has the following language:

"Whoever does one of the following shall be sentenced to twenty years in prison: