Tel Aviv Court Acquits Man of Threatening Wife Due to Evidentiary Flaws
A Tel Aviv court acquitted a 60-year-old man of threatening his wife, citing severe flaws in the police investigation and a lack of reliable evidence.
A 60-year-old resident of Tel Aviv was acquitted of criminal threats by the Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court after a trial revealed significant evidentiary flaws and a mix-up of separate incidents during the police investigation. The defendant had originally been accused of returning home intoxicated, threatening to murder his wife and then commit suicide, and retrieving a bag containing slaughter knives from a closet.
Court Proceedings and Testimony
The case revolved around two separate events that occurred exactly a week apart, with the indictment filed solely regarding the first incident. Testifying through an Amharic interpreter, the wife described a long and positive marriage dating back to their life in Ethiopia, calling the event a "one-time slip." While she confirmed her husband said he would kill her and himself, she emphasized that he was heavily intoxicated and "did not do anything." Regarding the knives, she explained that her husband merely wanted to get shoes out of the closet and the bag of knives accidentally fell out.
The couple's son testified that his father was drunk during the incident. Although the son told the police dispatcher that his father was threatening to kill his mother, when asked if his father was holding anything, he responded: "He's holding nothing, he's drunk, come." The daughter also testified that she woke up to shouting, though she struggled to accurately recall the details.
"In order to convict a person in a criminal case, a general and vague determination that 'something happened, sometime' is not enough, but rather a concrete factual determination based on admissible and reliable evidence," Judge Avinor ruled.
Judge's Ruling and Acquittal
Defense attorney Inbar Kenan argued severe intoxication, lack of criminal intent, and major flaws in the police investigation. The defendant himself testified that he could not remember the events due to alcohol consumption.
Judge Avinor ruled that the evidentiary difficulties ran deeper than the question of intoxication, noting that mixing up the two incidents created an "almost absurd evidentiary situation." The judge pointed out that three entirely different versions regarding the threats were presented, and there was not a shred of evidence linking the knives to the threats, ultimately resulting in a full acquittal.
