Jurors have been asked to acquit two 12-year-olds of murder and manslaughter following the death of a man in Wolverhampton.
The 12-year-olds both deny murdering 19-year-old Shawn Seesahai, who was found on the Stowlawn playing fields in East Park, Wolverhampton, on November 13.
In their closing arguments on Monday, defense attorneys Rachel Brand and Paul Lewis each urged jurors to acquit their clients, who deny murder.
The couple’s identity is protected by a court order.
One of the defendants admits to having possessed a machete at the crime scene, but accuses his co-defendant of stabbing the victim.
He told Nottingham Crown Court that he was only involved in pushing Mr Seesahai and that he was “not around” when his friend killed the 19-year-old.
Both deny injuring Mr Seesahai, who suffered a skull fracture and fatal 23cm deep wounds to his chest.
Ms Brand, representing the teenager who admits possessing the machete used to stab Mr Seesahai, asked jurors to consider whether the incident was “triggered” after the defendants were, it was alleged, aggressively asked to move away from a judge’s table.
She told the jury: “Common sense dictates that you must decide who caused the stab wounds.”
“You can’t find him guilty of murder or manslaughter just because it was his knife.”
“He panicked or lost his head”
There was no witness testimony that her client shouted anything that would have encouraged the other boy to use the knife, Ms Brand told the court, adding: “There is no evidence whatsoever that Shawn Seesahai was punched, kicked or stomped on by either boy.”
“He had no bruises… and the few minor abrasions on his body may have nothing to do with this incident.
“We ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to consider, in view of the evidence in this case, that this may well have been a sudden and unexpected fatal stabbing, committed by (the other boy) alone – perhaps because he panicked or lost his head.”
Ms Brand urged the jury to acquit her client of murder and manslaughter charges, adding: “Such a verdict would not be an endorsement of what happened.”
“Such a verdict would not be an endorsement of knife crime. It would simply be a true verdict based on the evidence presented in this case.”
In his closing argument, Mr Lewis claimed that Ms Brand’s client had a fascination with weapons.
He said of his client: “We believe that an appropriate verdict would be not guilty on all counts.”
“Mere presence at the crime scene is not enough.”
Mr Lewis said of the other defendant: “This is a boy who searches the internet for them (knives). This goes beyond just an interest in knives.
“Did he ever give you a good reason why he kept the machete? He knew it was a weapon that had been used to kill a man.
“He must have intended to take it back – there’s no other reason to bleach it and hide it in his bedroom.”
Mr Lewis also asked the jury to compare and contrast the evidence against the boys, which showed his client had a “small spot” of blood on the toe of his right sneaker, while the co-defendant’s clothing had 11 bloody spots.
High Court judge Mrs Justice Tipples will summarise the evidence in the case on Tuesday.
Follow BBC West Midlands on Facebook, XAnd InstagramSend your story ideas to: [email protected]
Further Internet links
