Cracked seeds outside the synagogue - and was acquitted due to a failure in identification

A report on throwing sunflower seed shells outside a synagogue ended in an acquittal due to reasonable doubt, after a court determined that although the policewoman who testified in the case was reliable, a real doubt remained as to whether she identified the correct person who was cracking seeds.

Judge Eran Zeller criticized the method of identification performed in retrospect using a photo in the police system, and determined that under the circumstances of the case, it is impossible to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the indictment filed by the Tel Aviv Ministry of Environmental Protection, the incident occurred about a year ago near midnight when the defendant stood at the entrance to the synagogue, cracked seeds, and threw the shells on the floor. Because of this, he was charged with the offense of prohibiting littering and throwing waste according to the Maintenance of Cleanliness Law.

The judge also noted that an additional clause attributed to the defendant in the indictment is not relevant to the case at all, as it deals with throwing waste from a vehicle, building, or vessel, while in this case, none of these alternatives were claimed.

The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the policewoman who said she was called to the scene following a report of noise from the synagogue. According to her, while she was explaining to a person standing outside the place that it is forbidden to make noise at night, he "cracked seeds in front of me" and "while I was talking to him, he cracked seeds and threw them on the floor."

She testified that she stood at a distance of about a meter to a meter and a half from him and explained that the incident was not documented on her body camera because the camera battery was empty and it was left in the patrol car for charging.

Later, she claimed that she identified the same person inside the synagogue and afterwards, when she entered the ID number into the police system, the defendant's photo appeared and she identified him as the one who committed the offense. The prosecution argued in its closing arguments that this was "direct, consistent, and reliable" testimony, and that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant threw the shells.

The defendant denied the charges against him throughout the process. He admitted that he was present at the synagogue that evening, but denied that he cracked seeds or threw shells on the floor. According to him, no one approached him during the incident and he does not even know how his details reached the authorities.

In his closing arguments, he claimed that there is no documentation that strengthens the identification claim, that the inspector who was at the scene did not write any memo or report, that there are no reports from other police officers who were present at the scene, and that there are time gaps between the time the offense was allegedly committed and the times arising from the evidence. He also claimed that the body camera footage is partial and does not support the prosecution's version.

The judge determined that although he has no doubt about the integrity and sincerity of the policewoman, the main difficulty lies in the reliability of the identification she performed. After carefully watching the body camera video, he noted that it is impossible to identify the defendant in it, there is no indication that the policewoman points to him inside the synagogue, and it does not even appear that the police officers are asking for ID cards from those present. According to him, "it is impossible to point to the defendant inside the group of men who were inside, there is no indication in the video that the policewoman identified him."

Later, the judge analyzed the method of identification and determined that it was actually an identification made in retrospect based on a photo that appeared in the police system after entering the ID number, and not a frontal identification on the spot.

He emphasized that "the identification of the defendant by his name and ID number was not frontal but was done in retrospect, based on a photo of the defendant stored in the police system," and noted that the identification was performed about an hour after the short meeting with the person who cracked the seeds. The judge added that it was impossible to know what other photos appeared before the policewoman during the identification, and whether there were other people with similar characteristics.

The judge also referred to the Supreme Court ruling, according to which special caution should be exercised when a conviction relies on a single identification. He quoted that "the identification of a person is an unfailing source of errors," and clarified that in this case, there is no problem with the personal reliability of the policewoman but with the possibility that a sincere mistake was made in the identification.

According to him, "there is a certain difficulty in the reliability of the identification, to the point that a certain doubt arises whether the policewoman's identification of the defendant specifically was accurate." The judge also pointed to other deficiencies in the investigation. According to him, after the policewoman claimed she identified the defendant, it could be expected that she would return to the synagogue, give him the report, and ask for his response, but this was not done.

In addition, the inspector who was a witness, according to the policewoman's version, to the throwing of the shells, did not write any memo and no testimony was brought on his behalf that would support the identification. The judge determined that the lack of this evidence adds to the other difficulties and strengthens the doubt.