Ofer - Plea Bargain, Stone Throwing

Observers: 
Nitza Aminov (reporting)
27/01/2013
|
Morning

 

Translation: Marganit W.

  

Hearing in the case of Bassel Ali Hassan Abu Maria,ID 85959708 Case 1991/12

 

Judge: Major Shahar Greenberg

Prosecutor: Lieutenant Agranash Agniahu

Defense: Akram Samara

 

Bassel has been in custody since 5.3.12. He was detained with a group of minors from Beit Ummar, charged with throwing rocks during a demonstration in support of the hunger strike of prisoner Hader Adnan. This group includes also Zen Hasham Abu Maria, some of whose hearings we also attended (see reports in our website).

 

The charge sheet enumerates incidents of rock throwing at vehicles, giving details of four damaged cars, including their makes, the damage and the drivers’ names.

It turns out that the file already contains a plea bargain (the defendant’s father told me that there is a decision of 13 months jail). There is also an agreement regarding compensation for the damaged vehicles.

The hearing was held in order to allow the father to obtain a 3000-shekel voucher, as part of a future plea bargain, to be arranged by the next hearing (in three weeks) when the agreement will be presented to the court.

 

Hearing in the case of Yehya Falah Abu Maria,ID 401303540 –Case 1156/13

The defendant is a minor from Beit Ummar.

 

Judge: Major Shahar Greenberg

Prosecutor: Lieut. Agranash Agniahu

Defense: Atty. Ahlam Haddad

 

Yehya has been detained since 7.1.13

The charges, as they appear in the indictment, include the usual litany that can be “copied and pasted” automatically by the court typists. The text is so broad: “ the defendant at such and such a place on such and such a date, or thereabout, threw an object or a rock toward a person or property with an intent to hurt or damage…”

Atty. Haddad pointed out – correctly – that such formulaic phrasing detracts from the defendant’s ability to prove an alibi. In addition she claimed that examination of the file makes it impossible to find out how the security forces came to arrest the defendant as well as Prosecution Witness No. 2.

The judge wanted to know if the file included a request for confidentiality. It turns out that it did not. In which case, the prosecution will have to answer Atty. Haddad’s question.

The defense had other minor complaints: the defendant suffers from eye problems, but has seen only a general practitioner. Thereupon the judge ordered the defendant to be seen by an ophthalmologist within 24 hours. The defense had other specific complaints about the investigation.

 

In the decision it was stated that the court had read the defendant the indictment, thus opening the trial, which will resume on 17.2.13 for evidentiary hearing.