State Rejects Zadorov’s Request for New Hearing Over Tair Rada Murder

Roman Zadorov was convicted in 2006 though the case remains controversial until present day.

Gil Eliyahu

The state has objected to Roman Zadorov’s request for the Supreme Court to hold another hearing over his conviction for the 2006 murder of schoolgirl Tair Rada. The court upheld the original verdict in a 2-1 vote last December.

The state’s opinion, submitted on Sunday by attorney Tamar Borenstein, said that holding another hearing would be a rare procedure, one reserved for exceptional and unusual cases.

In this case, the prosecution argued, “An examination of the ruling shows that the court did not set, nor did it intend to set, a new precedent. The ruling deals solely with a precise, in-depth review of the complex web of evidence that was the basis for the ruling of the district court [that convicted Zadorov of murder].

“The dispute between the majority opinion and the minority one, which, as the court defined it, marched a long way together, is about the weight and significance of part of the evidence brought, and on the question whether if, in the end, there is reasonable doubt about Zadorov’s guilt. The justices disagreed on this, but a dispute of this nature is purely factual and isn’t grounds for another hearing.”

In his request for an additional hearing, Zadorov’s attorneys argued that the ruling has “substantive difficulties,” regarding the footprint found on Rada’s pants, which was claimed to have been left by Zadorov’s distinctive shoes, and the type of blade on the knife used to cut Rada’s chin.

The attorneys also want the discussion to focus on the definition of “reasonable doubt,” and establish that it includes a range of situations. These include “a situation in which the confession of a person accused of committing a crime (which is the main evidence against him) substantially contradicts a significant detail regarding the way the crime was committed and its circumstances, or a situation in which a significant piece of evidence found at the scene of the crime unequivocally links another person to the crime and contradicts the evidence incriminating the defendant, including his confession.”