Moreover, the defense did not claim any detail that prevented the defendants' counsel from asking Muhammad all the questions that the prosecution was supposed to ask, since all the material was laid out in front of the defense attorneys at the time of his second testimony, and then they could have asked him any question they wanted.
Counsel for defendants 2 and 3 further claimed that Muhammad had explained well why he had given different versions and why he did not speak during his interrogation, and now he had decided to speak and in his words he referred to Muhammad's words in the transcript:
Q: Okay. Now, they asked you at the police, the prosecutor asked you, why didn't you tell you about this story of drugs in police interrogations, so you said, I was scared, with us, you know, I waited for them to say it. What did you mean? Let's explain.
A: First of all, I didn't want to get people into trouble about drugs and that's it.
Q: About drugs.
A: But when the court assured me that it wasn't,
Q: Who didn't you want to get into trouble with?
A: Myself, Sayid, this, this and that, in connection with drugs.
Q: Munir too?
A: Monir too. But when
Q: When they gave you confidentiality, then you decided to talk.
A: Yes."
As noted above, no weight should be given to the claim that the state impaired the weight that should be given to the words that Muhammad gave to the informant because it did not prepare Muhammad for testimony according to the defense.
At the same time, it should also be emphasized that there is a gap between the actions of defendants 2 and 3, in respect of which there is an argument that the "drugs" transaction was relevant, and the actions of Muhammad (and defendant 1), for whom the drug issue was irrelevant, since, as was proven against Muhammad, there is ample evidence that he murdered the deceased.