Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial is set to open next week. Like any defendant, the prime minister must be presumed innocent and the rules of law are supposed to guarantee him a fair trial – but in Netanyahu's case, it's hard to see how that will happen.
The basic assumption of the criminal justice system is that judges must rule solely on the evidence presented to them at trial after the necessary steps have been taken to ensure their credibility.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
But there are a number of significant concerns regarding the fairness of the proceedings.
The first concern stems from a possible "trial by media," which could affect the judges. The charges in question have been discussed, debated and dissected from every angle in the media, and under these circumstances, it would be difficult for the trial to begin as a "clean slate" with the bench upholding the presumption of innocence and ruling on the merit of the evidence alone.
The media effect may come to pass, for example, by lending too much importance to the prosecution's evidence, dismissing important evidence presented by the defense, or disregarding the principle by which convicting an innocent person is exponentially worse than acquitting a felon.
Another concern stems from the very high profile of Netanyahu's trial, and particularly, the fact that its outcome will have significant implications for Israel's future, regardless of the media effect.
These concerns cannot be dismissed, especially in light of the fact that, in many people's minds, the charges in Netanyahu's case speak directly to his moral standing and, consequently, his competence to serve as prime minister.
Is it that unreasonable to assume that a judge who identifies with this view, and is convinced that there is a 50%t chance that Netanyahu is guilty, would be inclined to convict him?
In any other case – a low-profile case – such a level of probability would mandate an acquittal.
Another concern is related to influencing witnesses. The charges against Netanyahu are rife with confidantes-turned-state witnesses and others whose testimony is key.
The damage inflicted by the media on the integrity of these testimonies may be considerable – worse, it may irreparable. Even if we assume that the judges hearing the case have somehow been able to ignore or transcend the media coverage, it is impossible to gauge its impact on the witnesses.
The nonstop media coverage of the charges against Netanyahu can affect witnesses in a myriad of ways. Reports about testimonies or evidence that were eventually excluded from the case going to trial may affect witnesses' memory, and their account of the event may no longer be based purely on first-person experience.
Images and narratives leading the media coverage of the prime minister's legal troubles may affect witnesses' motivation to come forward or taking the stand, or their belief that certain details are crucial.
This reduces the likelihood that the evidence heard in court will reflect the objective reality. After all, even the most professional and impartial judges are human and may not be able to detect such nuanced in the testimonies.
These concerns do not reflect any conclusions about Netanyahu's guilt or innocence, but they do raise doubts about his chances of getting a fair trial.
