Olmert feared surprises, Zaken wanted closure

This article was written before the verdict in the Holyland trial was announced on Monday morning.

Back in the days before television, the Internet and cellphones, local kiosks would sell booklets featuring romantic thrillers replete with detectives, espionage, and treason. The last page would say: "To be continued next week." The late Amnon Dankner, Maariv's chief editor and a good friend of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, took it upon himself to continue the romantic thriller tradition in his book, "Aunt Eva, His Nights and Days."

That is what Tel Aviv District Judge David Rozen did on Sunday. Now 64, he was still a toddler when kiosks were selling those booklets, but he nevertheless embraced that genre and said, "To be continued tomorrow." He essentially decided not to decide on the state's last-minute motion for a stay of verdict and on the unusual request to have Olmert's former bureau chief Shula Zaken testify against her former boss as a state witness well after closing arguments had been made.

On Monday, Rozen decided on those two motions before a packed courtroom, with the defendants and their attorneys present and with their relatives watching. Only a few meters separated Olmert from Zaken, in what was their first face-to-face encounter since their big falling out. No story book could provide for better drama. Our favorite fictional reads pale in comparison to the unfolding reality. Zaken and Olmert are the epitome of "Crime and Punishment."

The trial's unprecedented denouement was befitting. I cannot recall a criminal case where the prosecution wanted to call a witness back to the stand on the eve of the verdict, long after the closing arguments had been made. But the Holyland trial is not your run-of-the-mill trial. It is one of a kind.

Olmert and Zaken, defendants 8 and 9 respectively, attracted the most attention, but ironically, those higher up on the list, whose alleged actions were the crux of the indictment, were all but forgotten by the media. As the court convened on Monday, every Israeli knew that if Olmert walked and the other 12 defendants were convicted, the prosecution would have lost. Why? Because the trial was all about the Olmert-Zaken duo, until they each went their separate ways.

Rozen had three options:

• To issue a stay of verdict to allow the state to complete its investigation into Olmert's alleged obstruction of justice. In such a scenario the state would have been able to call Zaken back to the stand and counsel would have had the chance to cross-examine her.

To issue a partial stay of verdict that would apply only to Zaken and Olmert. But that would have been counterproductive.

To issue the verdict in full. As a result of such a decision, the new probe against Olmert would have taken its own path, without any bearing on the trial's outcome.

Walking into the courtroom, Zaken knew that an across-the-board guilty verdict would have been the best possible outcome. If Olmert was to be convicted, Zaken would still enjoy the perks of her plea bargain without having to undergo a grueling cross-examination by his defense. Olmert's attorneys did not want a stay of verdict, but it took them a while to sound their objection. Perhaps he wasn't sure what to do. He too knew that a stay of verdict could have helped him avoid a guilty verdict on counts that usually involve a moral turpitude clause.

All parties knew that a stay would have opened the door for more surprises. Like in that famous tale of a Jew who says he can teach a dog to speak in five years, because who knows what will happen in that time. All defendants had a sleepless night on Sunday. On Monday, the groggy protagonists entered the courtroom to find out their uncertain fate.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו