Sapry wants last word during murder trial

LACONIA — Prosecutors in the murder-insanity case of Hassan Sapry have asked a judge to reject the request by Sapry’s attorneys that they — rather than the prosecution — make the final closing argument to the jury at his trial which is scheduled to get underway in 3 1/2 weeks.

Sapry, 24, is accused of killing Wilfred Guzman, 57, in Guzman’s Blueberry Lane apartment, on April 18, 2019.

In a hearing before Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Leonard on July 7, Sapry’s lead attorney, Mark Sisti, asked that the defense be allowed to make the final closing argument because it has the burden of proving that Sapry was insane at the time of the crime, and so was unable to understand that what he was doing was legally and morally wrong.

Sapry is facing charges of both first-degree and second-degree murder, along with charges of falsifying physical evidence, theft by unauthorized taking, and four counts of credit card fraud.

His attorneys have argued in court filings that Sapry was insane at the time of Guzman’s death due to the emotional trauma he suffered after seeing horrors as a child growing up in Iraq.

Both the defense’s and prosecution’s psychiatrists have concluded that Sapry suffers from prolonged serious mental illness, but disagree on whether that mental illness was the direct cause of the actions that resulted in Guzman’s death.

Associate Attorney General Jeffery Strelzin, the lead prosecutor in the case, argued in his written objection to the defendant’s motion that the request should be denied, partly because the deadlines for filing motions in the case had passed. In addition, Strelzin cited three legal decisions that he argued show that the defense is not entitled to argue last in a trial where a defendant’s guilt and sanity are argued in the same proceeding — called a unified trial. He further argued that even in a murder-insanity case the prosecution still has the burden of proving the defendant is guilty of the crimes with which he is charged.

In its motion, the defense states it may request a two-part — or bifurcated trial — if its request to make the final argument is not granted.

In the objection, Strelzin said any request for a bifurcated trial should be denied as well because the two sides have until now agreed to a unified trial. To allow a bifurcated trial at this stage would require the prosecution to change the strategy of how to present its case, as well as the order in which its witnesses would be called to testify, Strelzin maintained.

The prosecution has told the court that it could call as many as three dozen witnesses to testify. The defense, meanwhile, has eight people on its witness list, according to court records.

In a bifurcated trial the jury would first hear testimony and then issue a verdict on whether Sapry was guilty of Guzman’s death. After that it would hear testimony about his mental state and then issue its verdict on whether he was insane.

If the judge denies the defense’s request to make the final argument, Sapry’s lawyers are also proposing that closing arguments be divided into three parts. In the first part, the defense would make its arguments on every aspect of the case except for the question of insanity. Then the prosecution would make its closing arguments all elements of the case. Then finally the defense would present its arguments as to why the jury should find Sapry legally insane.

The judge had yet to rule on the issue. During the July 7 hearing she indicated that she might not issue a ruling until sometime in the second week of August which has been set aside for jury selection. Testimony is scheduled to begin on Monday, Aug. 15 and could last for three weeks, making it the longest criminal trial in Belknap County in recent memory.