I'd give Sultan's close a 7 or 8 - probably the best piece from the defense so far.
Overall he emphasized lack of motive and bias in how the evidence was presented. It was sort of a smokescreen defense in the sense that he focused the majority of the case on things that didn't really go to the core of the prosecution's case. He did spend a bit of time on the lack of evidence and the instructions, but that should probably have had more weight. Also, no strong looping, etc. No strong development of alternative theories. His use of "confirmation bias" (which was looped) was outstanding though.
This is sort of the CYA close Paulin and I were discussing. It dutifully trots out problems with the state's case. It his the major points (burden, BRD, presumption of innocence, etc.). It floats a few soft speculations as to what else might have happened, without getting into details.
For all the really nice (and it was nice) point by point illustrations of the problems with particular problems in the prosecution, what Sultan didn't deliver was a consistent alternative narrative or two. I suspect he could have. I'd have done that myself. The danger is that the prosecution will present an argument that in isolation any flawed piece of evidence is bolstered by 4 other pieces of evidence. Also, the defense theories (such as they are) are unreliable. For example, the story about PCP use comes from AH's cousin/aunt, who wasn't reliable at all.
If that couldn't happen the defense probably should have emphasized the "completely unknown" aspects of the case more fervently. This was a sort of "chip away" defense, gilded with "we just don't know." I'd say he could have done better with making these arguments more concrete and based in the instructions. (If your argument is that the state really failed to show an element, that has to be front and center. Here, the "lack of motive" and "problems with investigation" was front and center.)
All that said, this close could have been very effective - we can't see the jury or their reactions. Perhaps it was exquisitely well tailored. Or maybe it fell flat. It's hard to tell in isolation. You can't effectively measure a close outside of the jury it's given to.