Israel's Top Court Pushing For Plea Deal In Major Case Against Crime Boss
Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Amit has recommended that the
prosecutor's office attempt to negotiate a plea agreement with 15 organized
criminal suspects, including crime family boss Yitzhak Abergil, in a
high-profile case arising out a massive police crackdown on organized crime.
The case provides the links connecting a number of Israel’s
most significant crimes in recent years, police claim.
Lawyers for eight defendants petitioned the High Court of
Justice seeking an order requiring the prosecutor's office to honor a mediation
agreement reached in the case that later unraveled. Justice Amit gave the
prosecution 14 days to respond to his proposal that the sides attempt to come
to agreement on plea bargains in the case, which police have dubbed Case 512.
It is thought that Amit suggested a compromise due to the high costs involved
in trying the case — about 100,000 shekels ($27,600) for every day of the
trial, according to one estimate.
Abergil is charged in the case with three counts of murder
of innocent bystanders in a car bombing in 2003 on Yehuda Halevi Street in Tel
Aviv. Agreement was reached through mediation in April of last year that
Abergil would serve 30 years in prison on the charges against him, but the
prosecution conditioned the deal on plea agreements with the other defendants.
Agreement were only reached with two of them, Meir Abergil — Yitzhak Abergil’s
brother — and Moti Hassin.
At a hearing on the case on Thursday, Justice Amit said that
the chances of the High Court petition being granted were low. He then removed
the public and the Haaretz reporter from the courtroom and conducted negotiations
between the parties.
Yitzhak Abergil’s lawyer, Shimshon Weiss, said that the
state was “wasting resources when it could lock Abergil up for 30 years. He’ll
get out when he’s 80, if at all.” For his part, prosecutor Nissim Merom said
that the prosecution’s motivation to reach an agreement with Abergil was “very
low to non-existent” because Abergil had already testified.
Comments
Post a Comment