Edition: U.S. / Global

Final Arguments at Trial of Sniper Suspect

Published: December 17, 2003

The pictures, projected onto a large screen across the courtroom from the jury, told the two sides' stories.

In their closing argument at the trial of Lee Malvo, prosecutors on Tuesday showed photographs of the corpses of people who died in last fall's sniper attacks, accompanied by tapes of Mr. Malvo describing in cheerful detail where his rifle blasts landed and how his victims fell.

Defense lawyers showed a picture of Mr. Malvo as a small boy in Jamaica and a brooding head shot of John A. Muhammad, the man they say brainwashed Mr. Malvo into participating in the shootings.

Like the images, the closing arguments in Mr. Malvo's trial here on capital murder charges talked past one another in many ways. But for the first time in the trial, the two sides joined issue on several significant questions, and much of the evidence presented over the last six weeks came into focus.

The closing arguments considered three main questions: whether Mr. Malvo was the triggerman, whether his confessions last November should be credited and whether he was sane at the time of the shootings.

Michael S. Arif, a defense lawyer, conceded his client's involvement in the shootings, but pleaded for an acquittal.

''We're not disputing that Lee was there,'' Mr. Arif said. ''He was there at every one of these shootings.''

But Mr. Arif said Mr. Malvo was not a good enough shot to have killed many of the victims.

''Who takes a shot like that?'' he asked, referring to the killing of Linda Franklin, an F.B.I. analyst shot at night from 150 yards away. ''Frankly, not a punk kid.''

''He didn't have the skill,'' Mr. Arif said of Mr. Malvo. Mr. Muhammad, who had served in the military, took most of the shots, Mr. Arif said.

But Mr. Arif conceded that Mr. Malvo, now 18, killed at least one person, a bus driver.

''Much to my chagrin,'' he said, ''he shot Conrad Johnson. Tragedy. Did Lee have any right, reason or justification? No, he didn't.''

Mr. Malvo is on trial on charges that he killed Ms. Franklin at a Home Depot store last October. Proof that he pulled the trigger in that shooting is needed to convict him on one of the two counts of capital murder with which he is charged.

Mr. Muhammad was convicted in Virginia Beach last month for killing Dean Meyers, on the theory that he had been the captain of a two-man killing team whose controlling role satisfied the triggerman requirement even if he did not fire the shots.

To show that Mr. Malvo was the triggerman in the Franklin killing, Robert F. Horan Jr., the lead prosecutor, relied on genetic material recovered from the Bushmaster rifle used in the killings, which matched Mr. Malvo's DNA, and on a series of confessions last fall.

''He described it as only the shooter could describe it,'' Mr. Horan said of Mr. Malvo's confession. ''It happened the way he said it happened. That's because he was the one looking down the barrel of the weapon.''

Mr. Arif said Mr. Malvo had admitted to doing things he had in fact not done in order to protect Mr. Muhammad, whom he considered his father.

''What he has told you is not believable,'' Mr. Arif said of Mr. Malvo's confessions. ''Frankly, it's bull. It's nonsense.''

Mr. Malvo sometimes misstated details of the shootings, notably the side of Ms. Franklin's head that the bullet hit.

If the jury finds nothing more than that Mr. Malvo killed Ms. Franklin, he will not face the death penalty, and Judge Jane Marum Roush will determine his sentence.

If, however, the jury determines that the Franklin killing was one of two or more in a three-year period or that it was part of an act of terrorism, the jury will determine whether Mr. Malvo should be sentenced to death or life in prison.

The terrorism count does not require proof that Mr. Malvo was the triggerman; the multiple-killing count does.

The killings qualified as terrorism, Mr. Horan said, because the men sought to extort $10 million from the government.

Most of Mr. Arif's argument was a recapitulation of the defense case, which posited that Mr. Malvo's rough childhood and Mr. Muhammad's charm allowed the older man to exert complete control over the younger one.

In the end, Mr. Arif said, Mr. Malvo could not tell right from wrong.

''Lee could no more have separated from John Muhammad than you can separate from your shadow on a sunny day,'' he said.

Mr. Horan said the defense had not proved that Mr. Malvo was insane at the time of the crimes.

''He didn't know it was wrong to shoot a woman in the head?'' he asked angrily, jabbing his finger at the table. ''A hard life is not a mental illness.''

''We make no brief for John Muhammad,'' Mr. Horan said. ''He is as bad as he is,'' the prosecutor continued, pointing at Mr. Malvo.

''For all intents and purposes they are peas in a pod,'' Mr. Horan said. ''The only difference is that he's younger. But their willingness to kill and their willingness to do it for money is common to both of them.''

Mr. Arif began and ended his argument by pleading for his client's life.

''Adding another life to that pile of death does not solve anything,'' he said at the start.

He concluded by asking the jury to find Mr. Malvo not guilty by reason of insanity.

''You'll have to reach down into your consciences to do that,'' he said. ''If you can't reach that conclusion, I ask you to find him guilty of first degree murder,'' as opposed to capital murder.

''Without sounding overly melodramatic,'' Mr. Arif said, ''the last victim of John Muhammad sits at the defense table today.''

Photo: Michael S. Arif, a defense lawyer for Lee Malvo, leaving court. (Photo by Associated Press)