WARREN — After a lengthy deliberation that began Thursday morning and resumed Friday, a Trumbull County jury returned a guilty verdict around 3 p.m. in the aggravated murder trial of a Warren man.

According to prosecutors, Zaa Von Hameed, 26, now faces a potential sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after 20, 25 or 30 years, or life without parole. Each sentence includes a mandatory three-year firearm specification.

Hameed was charged with aggravated murder, including a firearm specification, in connection to the May 13 death of 20-year-old Nathaniel Bradley during an altercation at Park Place Tavern.

The sentencing hearing is expected to take place on Nov. 26 before Trumbull County Common Pleas Court Judge Andrew D. Logan.

Nathaniel Bradley’s brother, Rajha Bradley, shared his thoughts after the verdict was reached.

“This has been a huge stress for my mom and my family. It feels good to have closure after months of court appearances,” he said. “The deliberation process was definitely stressful, but in the end, the right decision was made.”

Rajha Bradley described Nathaniel Bradley as “creative” and “annoying in the way brothers are supposed to be.” He talked about the impact of his brother’s loss on their family, particularly Nathaniel’s young son. “He was something that can’t be replaced,” he said.

After the verdict, Trumbull County Assistant Prosecutor Michael Burnett said, “It was a long deliberation. These cases are never easy. We are very happy with the jury’s verdict. Attorney (Kevin) Trapp and I are thankful for the opportunity to fight for justice for Nathaniel Bradley and his family.”

Closing arguments were delivered Thursday morning. The jury deliberated into the afternoon before pausing and resuming their discussions at 10 a.m. Friday.

Burnett and Trapp argued that the shooting was intentional, citing forensic evidence that Bradley was shot while lying prone. They also pointed to Hameed’s alleged attempt to leave the scene as indicative of guilt.

Hameed’s defense attorney, Aaron M. Meikle, countered that his client acted in self-defense after he was physically attacked. Meikle also criticized the investigation’s thoroughness, highlighting the lack of DNA testing on a weapon allegedly involved and the absence of a search for additional weapons at the scene.