Tinley Man Gets New Trial In Wife's Beating Death

TINLEY PARK, IL — A Tinley Park man serving 29 years for the bludgeoning death of his wife in 2011 has had his conviction overturned and has been granted a new trial, court records show.

Bajaa Sam was convicted in 2018 for the 2012 murder of his wife Nermeen, who he beat with a weightlifting bar outside their home while their 4-year-old son watched. Will County Judge Amy Bertani-Tomczak sentenced him to 29 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Related: Son to Cops: 'Daddy Killed My Mommy'

In July, attorneys for Sam argued that he should be given a new trial, under the premise that the prosecutor "misstated critical evidence" and made "several other improper and prejudicial comments" that deprived him of a fair trial.

When he was convicted in November 2018, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow reacted to the verdict, saying, "Bahaa Sam knew exactly what he was doing when he beat his wife to death on a cold winter day six years ago. Thanks to a first-rate investigation by Tinley Park police and skilled trial work by my prosecutors, Steve Platek and Tom Slazyk, the jury saw through this cynical attempt by the defendant to deny responsibility for this brutal attack against his defenseless wife."

Sam had admitted to killing Nermeen, but argued that he was not guilty by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill, court records show. His attorneys said in July that testimony regarding his mental state at the time of the murder was misstated by the prosecution during the initial trial, in part leading to an unfair trial.

In addition, the defense claimed, the prosecution made "several other improper and prejudicial comments" during opening statements and rebuttal closing arguments. The defense also claimed that the judge had erred in allowing the prosecution to replay Sam’s videotaped confession in closing argument.

During his closing argument, Sam’s counsel had argued that Sam was insane at the time of the offense. He argued that the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding of guilty by mental illness, because Dr. Zoot, the prosecution's own expert, had agreed that Sam suffered from a mental illness that impaired his judgment at the time of the offense, court records show.

During the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, he asserted that a psychiatrist had testified that Sam’s mental illness did not impair his judgment at the time of the murder. Sam’s counsel objected, arguing that the prosecutor misstated the evidence. In response to the objection, the court told the jury, “you have heard the evidence. Go ahead.”

Sam's defense also argued that the prosecutor had "misstated critical evidence, misled the jury, repeatedly expressed his personal opinions, disparaged Sam’s defense attorneys, continued to make improper statements and arguments after the trial court had sustained Sam’s objections to them, and violated a pre-trial ruling barring the State from referencing the fact that Sam was on supervision for a prior act of domestic battery against Nermeen at the time of the murder."

Sam maintains that the jury was "substantially prejudiced by each of these improper acts, particularly given the closeness of the evidence as to his mental state at the time of the murder."

The Appellate Court ruled that the prosecutor's comments were problematic enough for the court to overturn Sam's conviction and grant him a new trial.

"Each of the prosecutor’s improper comments discussed above was severely and unfairly prejudicial to Sam’s defense," the ruling reads. "The impact of the improper comments, and the trial courts’ failure to redress them effectively, rendered the trial unfair and very likely influenced the jury’s verdict. The cumulative nature of the errors only compounded their harm. Sam is therefore entitled to a new trial. Because we find the issues discussed above to be dispositive, we do not need to address Sam’s remaining arguments."

The appellate court also ruled that there had been sufficient evidence with which the jury could have found Sam guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, so double jeopardy does not prevent a new trial. Double jeopardy is a clause of the Fifth Amendment that protects against being prosecuted twice for the same crime.

No information was available about coming court dates or when a new trial could happen.

Related coverage:

• Insanity Trial: Sam Believed Mother-In-Law Poisoned His Food
• Alleged Tinley Park Wife-Killer Bahaa Sam Found Fit to Stand Trial