In the accuser's summaries it was noted that the act of murder was committed prior to the date of the commencement of Amendment 137 to the Penal Law, and it was argued that there was no room for a discussion of the question of "what is the law that lenient the perpetrator", since the act of murder falls within the scope of section 301A(a) of the Penal Law – murder in aggravated circumstances – both in view of the fact that it was carried out after planning and after an actual process of weighing and formulating a decision to kill the deceased (collective dispute (1)). and because the act was committed while creating a real danger to the lives of people other than the deceased (collective dispute (9)).
Counsel for the accuser argued that the evidentiary structure for proving the guilt of the defendants as stated in the indictment was based on the words of the incriminating accomplice, Mohammed, with the informant who was put in his cell in the detention center, and that corroborating this was found in the many corroborating evidence that was brought before the court. In addition, the accuser's counsel argued that it had been proven that the defendants' suppressed version, through which they tried to escape the fear of the law, was false and could not stand, and that reference to this was given in their summaries, including reference to the claim of defendants 2 and 3 that they knew about the murder only after it was committed.
The arguments of the accusing counsel regarding the motive of the incriminating accomplice, Muhammad – as supporting evidence The accusing counsel argued that although a motive for the criminal act does not raise or lower the level of criminal liability, the case law held that proving a motive is sufficient to strengthen the weight of the rest of the incriminating evidence or to constitute additional circumstantial evidence. Later, the accuser's counsel argued, inter alia, that, in the present case, the family, friendship, and business connections in the drug world, between the defendants and Mohammed, led the defendants to cooperate with him in the murder. Counsel for the accuser argued that the defendants' statements also indicate the existence of the connection and the degree of acquaintance between them and Muhammad. Counsel for the accuser claimed in their summaries regarding the motive of the incriminating accomplice "Mohammed" to harm the deceased, that there was a prior acquaintance between Muhammad and the deceased, since they had been students in high school. It was reported that a dispute broke out between Muhammad and the deceased, after Muhammad came out of a barbershop in Hura on 17 December 2015, and then the deceased came from behind him, grabbed him and stabbed him in the chest and hand, causing him a cut in the face. According to the accuser's counsel, in Muhammad's testimony on 18 December 2015 to a police officer, Muhammad told about the incident from 2015, and initially claimed that he did not see who the person who attacked him was, and later claimed that he saw his face but did not know him. ; Muhammad's conversations with the informant during his arrest - it was noted that during Muhammad's conversation in the detention cell with T.A.K. (Hereinafter: "The informant"), on 3 July 2019, Muhammad described the motive and mentioned the name of the deceased. Counsel for the accuser claimed that during Muhammad's conversations with the informant on 7 July 2019 and on 8 July 2019, Muhammad spoke about the motive several times. In this context, they sought to refer to the aforesaid B/16A - the accuser's counsel argued that the existence of a motive also arose from the testimonies of the deceased's family members. Thus, in the testimony of my late father, Ibrahim al-Sayyid (p. 5), the father testified about the aforementioned dispute and about Muhammad's father's refusal to conduct a sulha; Also noted was the statement of the deceased's cousin Ahed Abu Shuldom to the police, who testified to certain situations that indicate the aforementioned dispute.