Prosecutors ask judge to exclude psychologist's report in Hamad murder case

WARREN

Prosecutors are asking Judge Ronald Rice to prohibit attorneys for Nassar Hamad from using the testimony of an expert witness, psychologist Dr. James Reardon, to establish that Hamad acted in self-defense when confronted by five people who came to his home Feb. 25.

He’s accused of killing two of them and wounding the three others.

Hamad, 48, of state Route 46 in Howland, is scheduled to go on trial for aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder Oct. 11 in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.

A pretrial hearing took place Thursday to finalize instructions jurors will receive when they begin to deliberate Hamad’s guilt or innocence; and to set a deadline for Hamad’s attorneys to respond to recent motions filed by prosecutors.

One recent motion suggests that Hamad’s attorneys plan to have Dr. Reardon testify on psychological issues pertaining to Hamad. Prosecutors said in their filing that they recently received a copy of a report Dr. Reardon prepared.

They didn’t say what type of psychological issues Dr. Reardon examined, and the attorneys in the case are prevented from talking about the case outside of court hearings and court filings because of an order imposed by Judge Rice.

Hamad has argued that he acted in self-defense when five people came to his house for a fight. After the fight, Hamad went in his house, got a gun and shot at the five as they prepared to leave, authorities have said.

A filing by assistant prosecutors Chris Becker and Mike Burnett suggests the purpose of Dr. Reardon’s testimony would be to give psychological explanations for Hamad’s actions.

The prosecutors cite a 2013 Ohio case in which a defendant attempted to introduce testimony from a psychologist indicating that the defendant had “an honest belief that he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm, and his only reasonable means of escape was the use of deadly force.” The trial court excluded the testimony.

On appeal, the court said it is best left to a jury to evaluate whether a defendant believed he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm.

Read more about the case in Friday's Vindicator or on Vindy.com.