Defendant 1's Lies in Court and a Suppressed Version
According to counsel for defendant 1, defendant 1 said that in court he was afraid to cooperate with the police because he did not want to incriminate himself for a drug offense, and only in his testimony in court did he tell his version of events.
According to counsel for defendant 1, the defendant's lies can constitute support for the prosecution's evidence, but where the accuser did not present sufficient evidence for a conviction, there is no room to fill the evidentiary vacuum in the existence of the defendant's lies.
Counsel for the defendant referred to criminal appeal 5582/09, Anonymous v. State of Israel, where it was held, inter alia, that "the pit is not filled by its squad and the defendant's lies cannot be a substitute for the lack of sufficient evidence by the prosecution."
Indeed, when the evidentiary basis against a defendant is incomplete, there will be no room to give decisive weight to the defendant's lies, since "life experience teaches that sometimes one reacts in the same way (telling lies – A.H.) even one who has not sinned but finds himself in distress due to the fear that his denial of the criminal act attributed to him will not be trusted, and then he decides to resort to false explanations." (Criminal Appeal 8002/99 Eli Bachar v. State of Israel, 56(1) 135).
The problem is that in the case of defendant 1, the evidentiary basis against him is a real one, in light of all that has been detailed above. The defendant's version in court was not orderly, it was unclear, it contradicted itself, contradicted the answer he gave in court, and contradicted what the other defendants and Muhammad provided. In these circumstances, it will certainly be possible to view the defendant's lies in court as lies that will strengthen the evidence against him, and can even be considered as supporting evidence, and only some of the examples that exist in this regard will be presented below:
Moreover, the version of defendant 1 in court was suppressed after he did not mention any of the details he told in court about the course of events on the day of the murder, and about the drug deal, which he did not mention during his interrogations with the police, and this fact will be given considerable weight when we come to assess the weight, which will be given to his version that was first given in court, after he has heard all the evidence that was presented.