The Supreme Court will announce its decision on the Margalit Har-Shefi case tomorrow morning. Ms. Har-Shefi was convicted in June \'98, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, of not preventing the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin. She later appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court, and at the most recent Court session, was informed that the decision \"would be handed down at a later date.\" Tomorrow, that date will finally arrive - thirteen months later.
Her attorney for the appeal, Yaakov Weinrot, told the judges at the time [January 2000] that although she heard Yigal Amir say that he wanted to kill Prime Minister Rabin, she did not believe for a second that he would actually do so. Weinrot cited an incident in which Har-Shefi, along with many others, witnessed Yigal Amir say to a busload of passengers that he was going to kill the Prime Minister. \"After this, she was convinced that his public declaration showed that he was not serious,\" Weinrot explained.
Weinrot added that from a legal standpoint, Har-Shefi\'s conviction was without precedent, and would lead to the absurd situation in which every citizen who hears a friend or acquaintance threaten to commit a crime \"would be obligated to run to report it to the police.\" Weinrot also noted that many pages of the records of the police interrogation of Har-Shefi did not carry her confirming signature, and that her requests to correct a portion of the police records were rejected.
Her attorney for the appeal, Yaakov Weinrot, told the judges at the time [January 2000] that although she heard Yigal Amir say that he wanted to kill Prime Minister Rabin, she did not believe for a second that he would actually do so. Weinrot cited an incident in which Har-Shefi, along with many others, witnessed Yigal Amir say to a busload of passengers that he was going to kill the Prime Minister. \"After this, she was convinced that his public declaration showed that he was not serious,\" Weinrot explained.
Weinrot added that from a legal standpoint, Har-Shefi\'s conviction was without precedent, and would lead to the absurd situation in which every citizen who hears a friend or acquaintance threaten to commit a crime \"would be obligated to run to report it to the police.\" Weinrot also noted that many pages of the records of the police interrogation of Har-Shefi did not carry her confirming signature, and that her requests to correct a portion of the police records were rejected.