It would be “extremely dangerous” for jurors to rely on the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, defense lawyers argued in closing arguments at a first-degree murder trial in Calgary.
Prabhjyot Bhatti, 25, and Jaskaran Sidhu, 24, are each charged with first-degree murder in the April 3, 2019, deaths of Jasdeep Singh, 25, and Japneet Malhi, 22.
Singh and Malhi were killed in a drive-by shooting as they sat in the front seats of a Mercedes SUV after leaving the Mazaj Lounge shortly after 2 a.m
On Thursday, prosecutors Brian Holtby and Aurelie Beland and defense attorneys Shamsher Kothari and Andrea Urquhart delivered closing arguments to jurors who had spent four weeks hearing evidence.
“A crime thriller”
“This is a criminal case,” Sidhu’s lawyer Shamsher Kothari said in his closing arguments.
The only question the jury must consider is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the two defendants are responsible for the murders of the two victims.
Prosecutors called for convictions, while defense lawyers argued the Crown's case failed to provide “nearly” enough evidence for guilty verdicts.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Brian Holtby argued that the two men on trial had committed a “calculated, cowardly, cold and cruel” murder.
Holtby and Beland reviewed the Crown's evidence against the two men, which relied heavily on CCTV footage of vehicles and people in car parks, as well as statements from a former associate of the defendant – a man identified only as “WA”, who testified that he helped prepare the murder.
Although the evidence was insufficient to identify a specific shooter, Holtby argued that it could have been one of the three men, Bhatti, Sidhu or Amandeep Saggu, an associate of the two defendants, identified through both the key witness and cell phone records was placed at the crime scene.
If neither defendant was the shooter, they at least “played a role in the set-up,” Holtby told jurors.
Cactus Club to Mazaj
On the evening of the shooting, Bhatti and Sidhu were at the northeast Cactus Club.
The Crown's theory is that they received a tip that Singh and Malhi were at the Mazaj Lounge, about 500 meters away to the northeast.
They are seen leaving at 11:30 p.m
Although they will not be seen again, the Crown has asked jurors to rely on parking lot vehicle footage to place both men in Bhatti's Nissan, which prosecutors say was used in the drive-by nearly three hours later.
At around 12:30 p.m., video evidence shows a collision between two vehicles side by side a few blocks from the Mazaj Lounge. There, the Crown's key witness, a man identified only as WA, testified that he was instructed to go to the restaurant to confirm the presence of Malhi and Singh.
WA’s “criminal act”
WA testified that he went into the Mazaj, saw the men at a table, left and passed the information on to Saggu, Sidhu and Bhatti.
“[WA] “I made a serious mistake, a criminal act,” Holtby said. “It’s a mistake he’ll have to live with for the rest of his life.”
But both defense attorneys called WA a “liar” and portrayed him as a man motivated by fear that the victims' families were targeting him and the police protection and payoff that came with cooperating in the investigation.
“The truth is all that matters [WA] if it serves his own interest,” Urquhart said.
WA told police for months he had difficulty remembering the face of the person in the passenger seat.
“The Building Blocks”
He didn't start pointing fingers until police told him that the victims' family members were on the hunt for him.
“You told him that you should be worried and that he was a suspect,” Kothari told jurors.
Kothari said WA police had been told: “If you become a material witness, we can get you protection and give you a new life.”
“These are the building blocks of his statement.”
WA was placed in witness protection over moving costs and $70,000.
He then identified Bhatti as sitting in the Nissan based on a two-second interaction that night when he was next to the car carrying Saggu, Sidhu and Bhatti.
“Saggu had a motive”
Urquhart pointed out that WA said in his police statement he was “pretty sure” it was Bhatti in the Nissan.
“We don't judge people based on 'pretty sure,'” Urquhart said.
She then pointed out that Saggu – who is not on trial – was the shooter.
“Saggu had a motive,” Urquhart said. “Saggu had a vendetta.”
And 14 minutes after the shooting, it was Saggu whose cell phone rang from a tower near Balzac, where the murder weapon was later found.
“If you agree with me… the case is closed.”
Kothari's arguments to the jury also focused on two photographs.
In one you can clearly see Sidhu leaving the Cactus Club with a full beard.
In the second still, a man is illuminated by taillights in a parking lot. The crown says this is Sidhu too.
But Kothari says the second photo shows a man without a beard.
“If you agree with me that these are two different people, the case is closed,” Kothari said.
Jurors will receive final instructions on how to apply the law to their deliberations and are expected to be sequestered beginning late Friday afternoon.
