With regard to the evidence, counsel for defendants 2 and 3 argued that the burden of proving the defendant's guilt would always be on the shoulders of the state, and that it would have to be persuaded that the combination of all the circumstantial evidence leads to the only possible conclusion that incriminates the defendant in the commission of the offense. In the case of defendants 2-3, it was argued in the summaries of the defendants' counsel that the accuser did not meet the burden with respect to the circumstantial evidence that could allegedly link the defendants to the incident that is the subject of the indictment.
With regard to the commission of the offense of murder together with Muhammad, and with regard to the test of control, it was argued that Defendant 2 was not part of the joint plan to commit the crime of murder, but rather that he was part of the joint plan, in bringing the vehicle from the Occupied Territories and arriving at the meeting point to which Muhammad directed the defendants, and only for the purpose of carrying out the planned drug theft and not for the purpose of committing the offense of murder as described in the indictment. It was further argued that even with regard to the proximity test, defendant 2 was not part of the inner circle of the offense, he arrived at the meeting point and waited there until Muhammad arrived. It was also argued that even with regard to the functional test in which the defendant's substantial role in the commission of the offense was examined, defendant 2 did not perform any action that would constitute a substantial part of the commission of the offense. It was noted that Defendant 2's part in the drug theft plan was to bring a vehicle from the Occupied Territories and wait at the meeting point, without any awareness of the main plot of the theft and the modus operandi in which Muhammad would operate. In addition, it was argued that an examination of the evidence in the case of Defendant 2 shows that there is no truth in terms of the combined test in relation to Defendant 2 that he did not have any awareness of the offense of murder that would occur. The defense argued that the combination of the aforesaid consolidates the conclusion that defendant 2 cannot be viewed as a joint perpetrator even according to this test.