Last Tuesday, the retrial against Roman Zadorov, accused of murdering the late Tair Rada in 2006, reached a new high. 4 reputable lawyers make faces, slap insults at me for not being honest, and claim I came with a prejudice. “Her voice even added that he” can not judge this case with a willing mind. “
The statements did not come as a surprise – for a long time now, the head of the panel has been expressing his position in the case in a manner contrary to the position of the State Attorney’s Office. The prosecution decided to continue with the trial despite the criticism heard from the court and the pointed statements about the evidence.
Her voice presented the prosecution with two options – either to disqualify him or to express confidence in him. If not, her voice indicated that he would have to “make a very dramatic decision in the case” and hinted that he would disqualify himself. “I had a black Passover. I was under pressure not only from the media, but also from people you do not know. I was close to disqualifying myself and I did not do it just because of Ilana Rada,” he said.
The prosecution is going all the way
Her voice even noted that an entire media campaign was being conducted against him and added a particularly disturbing remark – “There are other things that I do not want to reveal now. Whoever needs to know – knows that things have been done here that I think should not be done in a reformed country.” When asked by the attorneys, he clarified that the allegation of illegal acts was not directed at the State Attorney’s Office, but refused to elaborate.
The next day, a request was made on behalf of the prosecution to Judge Cola to elaborate on his remarks and that an allegation suggesting illegal acts “committed by unknown elements, cannot be left in the fog”. Until the remark was clarified, they asked for the hearings to be stopped, but the judge rejected the request, noting that “as long as there is no legal impediment, the trial will continue as normal.”
Globes’ request to the management of the courts for the purpose of clarifying the difficult statement was answered in response that “any decision regarding the continuation of the handling of the case and reference to the allegations will be heard before the panel.” The question of whether the police are investigating illegal acts – was not answered.
Until he was appointed a judge in the Zadorov trial, her voice was unusual in light of the media exposure. He was a judge in the Northern District, which is less surveyed than the Central and Jerusalem Districts. Lawyers who appear before him describe him as a proactive, sometimes blunt, intervening, questioning, expressing his position and sometimes shouting.
The judge’s implicit statement led an entire public to think that the prosecution had threatened the judge, which in practice was not alleged at all. Indeed, the judge’s harsh remarks, which led him to consider disqualifying himself, also stem from the criticism he receives from the attorneys, he said.
It should be noted that the prosecution decided to go all the way with the case and even got into confrontations with Chen Kugel, head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. Kugel testified at the first trial as a defense witness and submitted in the retrial an opinion contradicting the testimony of the doctor who submitted the original opinion.
The prosecution questioned Kugel on the witness stand and presented judicial decisions against his professionalism. This is often the case with experts, but not when it comes to the head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, whose opinions are presented in many cases. Kugel attacked the prosecution at the hearing: “Once the institute gives an opinion that the prosecution does not like or interferes with in any thesis, the institute becomes unreliable and unprofessional and a liar.”
“Lawyers should not make faces at the judge”
A former senior prosecutor told the Globes today that “the judge was wrong when he did not understand that his every word resonated throughout the country. This led to the unfolding of events. On the other hand, the prosecution was wrong when she expressed her frustration to him.
“One can understand how the judge was hurt emotionally by this. The lawyers should not make faces at the judge. They should not show frustration, even if they feel it in their hearts. As long as there is no decision to seek his disqualification, such scores should not be given.” He even added that the prosecution should examine itself and what was its contribution in getting the judge to such a situation.
Retired judge Oded Modrik, who served as vice president of the Tel Aviv District Court and currently serves as a special adviser to the law firm AYR, told Globes that ” And too absolute. We need to keep our heads open. “
Modric says that expressing a position during a trial is “a craft of thought expertise with subtle diagnoses and there may be certain situations in which the position is worth expressing.” At the same time, he says that the role of the plaintiffs is to criticize the court if they think it is acting in a lack of objectivity. Modrick qualifies his remarks by being unfamiliar with the details of the trial.