No verdict had been returned at the end of November 2018, with the judge requesting a second psychiatric evaluation of the accused.
Earlier in the trial, the prosecutor had demanded a 15 year prison sentence for attempted murder.
A year and a half ago, the now 26 year old man lit a bottle of petrol in his cousin's car before fleeing the scene. He was apprehended and detained in a foyer shortly thereafter.
It may well turn out that this second psychiatric evaluation is in the defendant's favour.
Instead of the original 15 year sentence, the prosecutor has now stated that the man should be given the benefit of the doubt: he was declared of unsound mind at the time of carrying out the act, and the judge should decide whether the accused should be committed for psychiatric treatment.
Both the president of the court and the prosecutor saw the differences between the conclusions of the two psychiatric experts.
On Monday, the 'new' expert highlighted that the man had begun to exhibit symptoms of psychosis at the age of 23: at this age, he first started to hear voices. Sooner or later, he was inevitably going to reach psychotic delirium.
In September 2017, the accused was due to be admitted to psychiatric care, but as the process was taking too long he left the programme.
It is argued that the accused had wanted to kill his cousin whilst in a delirious state. This motivation was put down to him having lost his way due to his mental state.
The second expert, who visited the man in Schrassig in February, suggested that the mental troubles at the time of the crime had caused the accused to lose control of his actions and posits that the man is no longer dangerous and should therefore not be punished, but treated instead.
As a result, the expert recommended a year and a half in prison as a fair punishment.
The first expert said that she saw some culpability, and recommended the man give up/seek treatment for drug addiction.
The judge commented on how different the two experts' opinions were and said that those differences were cause for concern.
In response, the first expert said that hers and the second psychiatrist's conclusions went in the same direction. The president and other representatives of the court disagreed with this statement.
The defendant's lawyer also pleaded for psychiatric care.
The verdict is scheduled for 14 May.
