To summarize this chapter: The testimony of the defendant before us and his version in general left an unreliable negative impression and far from convincing of the truth of what he said. This is a developing, illogical version, a version that includes frigid and contradictory questions, including proven lies.
Refraining from bringing Karam as a defense witness:
Against the background of the scene of the dispute in this case, the question arises and becomes sharper as to why the defendant did not bring as a defense witness the person who is potentially a key witness, which is extremely important to the core of his version, as it can shed light on everything that happened before, during and after the car-ramming. This is of course directed at Karim Abu al-Qiyan, the defendant's brother, who was with him in the car at the time of the car-ramming, and not only that, according to the defendant, he even warned him of the deceased's arrival on the left side of the road. Karim could have also confirmed or refuted the defendant's version as to the reason for which he fled the scene, the reason for which they changed driving, and the purpose of their trip. In addition, Karem drove his car near the deceased's home minutes before the car-ramming, and Jaudat even noticed him. Karem's testimony could have shed light on the meaning of this trip as well (when this is also said in connection with the defense attorney's claim in the summaries that the defendant could not have known about the deceased's presence on the street).
Nevertheless, Karem, who by virtue of being the defendant's brother, is within the reach of the defense, was not brought as a defense witness and no explanation, not even partial explanation, was given as to the meaning of this conduct. In this situation, the evidentiary rule applies, according to which a party's refusal to bring a relevant witness or required evidence, without a reasonable and reliable explanation, establishes a presumption of fact that if the evidence had been brought or the testimony had been heard, it would have acted in accordance with the duty of the abstainer and supported the opponent's version. In his case, the matter is clear and all the more lenient, and see, for example: "... The rule adopted by the courts since time immemorial is that a litigant should not withhold evidence that is in his favor, and if he refrains from bringing relevant evidence that is within his reach, and he has no reasonable explanation for it, it can be concluded that if the evidence had been brought, it would have acted against him. This rule is accepted and rooted in both civil and criminal trials, and the more significant the evidence, the more decisive and extreme the court may draw from its failure to draw more decisive and extreme conclusions against someone who refrained from presenting it..." (Civil Appeal 548/78 Sharon v. Levy, IsrSC 35(1) ). Similarly, see Yaniv and Aki , Law of Evidence (2020) | Chapter 10: Rules of Weight).