Caselaw

Causing Death by Negligent Driving (Eshed) 96-05-24 Southern District Attorney’s Office – Criminal v. Shai Yosef Haddad - part 110

October 19, 2026
Print

The location of the collision
The defendant testified that the collision She was on his path.
When confronted by the defendant, both in his first interrogation (P/43) and in his second interrogation (P/24) with the fact that according to the findings and marks on the road, the collision occurred in the lane of the vehicle involved and that he was the one who swerved from his lane, he replied that he was alone in his lane, remained in his lane and had no reason to reach the lane of the woman involved.

In this regard, it should be said, that the defendant's version regarding the occurrence of the accident in his lane is devoid of any evidentiary basis and does not correspond to the objective evidence found at the scene of the incident and the testimonies of those involved in the accident - the driver involved - Achinoam, Itay, who was the passenger in the vehicle involved, and the witness Ayalon Zadok.
As mentioned above, the defense did not even bring any evidence and/or expert opinion on its behalf to support the defendant's version.

A letter and a video edited by the defendant and given to the Vladi examiner
It should be noted, that as for the letter submitted on behalf of the defendant (P/26), it is a letter that was written and submitted with the accompaniment of videos edited by the defendant long after the accident occurred, about a year after the accident occurred (April 3,2024), and there is no dispute according to their content that they were made in accordance with the legal advice received by the defendant.

The letter and the video were submitted following another interrogation to which the defendant was summoned on March 34.24.  He was interrogated by the researcher Vladi Pevzner.

This is well known, that a document made by the defense about a year after the incident and in accordance with legal advice and handed over to the investigative unit carries little weight.

To this, it should be added that the video (P/27) made by the defendant also carries little weight, since it was done under conditions that do not simulate the conditions of the occurrence of the accident in question, in terms of the time of the accident, lighting conditions.

Previous part1...109110
111...125Next part
Skip to content