12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
- On January 25,2026, the Magistrate's Court issued a decision. At the beginning of the decision, the Magistrate's Court noted the language of Article 43 to the Ordinance, which states that where "a judge deems that the presentation of an object is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation or trial, he may summon any person, who according to the assumption that the object is in his possession or in his possession, to appear and present the object, or to produce it, at the time and place specified in the order." The court noted that in its view, Orich has the right to file a request by virtue of Article 43 However, in view of the uniqueness of the case at hand, in which Urich is a suspect in the Bild affair, it is not appropriate for him to receive all the raw material. Therefore, Urich's request was rejected and it was determined that if the police's request is granted, it is presumed that it will be able to hand over the relevant investigative materials to the defense when the time comes.
On the merits of the decision, it was determined that Feldstein's version of the interview was inconsistent with his statements in the interrogation, and in particular with what was stated in a confidential document (B/1) submitted as part of his arrest proceedings, in which it was noted that the reader would "save his ears." This, it was noted, is particularly relevant to Feldstein's version regarding the Bild affair. Therefore, the raw material in Essenheim's possession becomes relevant and essential to the ongoing criminal investigation. The Essenheim interview with Feldstein was conducted over time, and it is important to cross-check the information provided during it with the information provided in the interrogations. Therefore, according to the Magistrate's Court's position, it is not sufficient to suffice with the broadcast interview, which is a finished and edited product, and the overall picture will be found in the raw material. In light of the above, the Magistrate's Court found that there was a clear personal interest on the part of Urich; a critical investigative interest of the police; and a clear public interest in investigating the truth, all of which justify the transfer of all the raw material to the police.