According to counsel for defendant 1, in order to be convicted of the offense of murder as requested by the accuser, she must establish with evidence that the decision to cause the death of the deceased was indeed in Muhammad's heart, and later on, that there was indeed a connection to the commission of the offense of murder, and only this offense, and not any other offense. It was further argued that the accuser did not meet the burden imposed on her, since the evidence brought by the accuser did not find that Muhammad had in his heart to cause the death of the deceased. It was argued that, in fact, the accuser seeks to base the motive for the murder on the fact that in the past, the deceased had hurt Muhammad by stabbing him with a knife and leaving him with a scar. According to the defendant's counsel, a decision in Muhammad's trial does not constitute evidence in this case, and the accuser must establish with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad was the perpetrator of the murder, and since she failed to do so, the basis for the indictment in the case at hand was dropped. It was also argued that no evidence was brought on behalf of the accuser, which could prove the conspiracy to commit the crime of murder.
It was further argued that the lies of a defendant can constitute reinforcement where there is evidence, but this is not the case in our case. It was detailed that in his testimony in court, the defendant stated that he did not cooperate in the police investigation, since he did not want to sit in prison for a drug offense. At the same time, it was noted that in his testimony in court, despite his personal difficulties, the defendant recounted his version of events.
Counsel for the defendant argued that it had not been proven that defendant 1 was driving the vehicle at the scene of the murder, and it was not possible to determine, as the accuser requested in her summary, that defendant 1 was an accomplice to the murder, based on Muhammad's words to the informant, according to which when Muhammad was asked whether defendant 1 could open up on him, and whether he saw things that could complicate him, he replied, "See everything." It was argued that the aforementioned expression does not indicate that defendant 1 was an accomplice to the murder or an accomplice in conspiracy to commit murder.