CLOSING ARGUMENTS

CLOSING
ARGUMENTS

High points

Here are some of the points made by both the prosecution and defense during closing arguments in Donna Moonda’s trial. Jurors are deciding if she arranged the murder of her husband, Dr. Gulam Moonda, a Hermitage, Pa. urologist, on the side of the Ohio Turnpike.

PROSECUTION

Linda Barr, assistant U.S. attorney; and co-prosecutor Nancy Kelley:

The plan to kill Dr. Moonda could have never worked without his widow’s help.

She tried to mislead investigators by telling them that the killer was her husband’s height and was driving a dark minivan.

She had to lie to hide the fact that she was having sex with 22-year-old Damian Bradford, 50 miles away.

Moonda and Bradford had been exchanging text messages concerning vacations and their life together — something that could not have happened if Dr. Moonda were still alive.

DEFENSE

Atty. Roger Synenberg:

Tried to play down Moonda’s infidelity and lies. Contends Bradford, the gunman, acted alone, and Moonda failed to recognize him during the shooting.

Says Donna Moonda is innocent because she brought her elderly mother on the trip and “spouses usually don’t put themselves at the scene of the crime” when planning murder.

Told jurors there is no question that Dr. Moonda would still be alive if the defendant and Bradford had not met in drug rehabilitation. “That does not make Donna Moonda responsible.”