0 fraud he had been committing for years, the defense pointing out that doesn't make any sense, all that did was landed him in law enforcement's focus. so, what we see here is the defense trying to eat away at the prosecution's case. they did that earlier by attacking forensic evidence. they spent a lot of time talking about blood splatter evidence and why that might not be a reliable indicator of guilt. and while the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution, in essence, has to convince the jury on each of these points. the defense only has to make that one small inroad, that's their strategy here here. >> joyce vance, thank you so much. that does it for me this hour. i'll be back tomorrow. "jose diaz-balart reports" starts right now. and good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific, i'm jose diaz-balart. we're keeping our eyes on south carolina courtroom where former attorney alex murdaugh stands trial for the murder of his wife maggie and son paul. there is now a 10-minute break as the defense presents its closing arguments in which murdaugh's lawyer has so far told the jury there is not enough evidence to convict him of murder. after the prosecution presents a rebuttal, this case will be in the hands of the jury. tasked with deciding if prosecutors met the burden of proving that murdaugh was the one with the means, motive and opportunity to kill his family members. just before the defense began, a juror was dismissed this was this morning, for expressing opinions about the case in recorded interviews with parties not associated with the case. he was replaced with an alternate juror. joining us now is nbc news correspondent ellison barber outside the courthouse and also msnbc legal analyst charles coleman, civil rights attorney and former prosecutor, and nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett. so, we're just waiting for that ten-minute break that the judge announced just a short while ago, but, charles, how have -- do you perceive the effectiveness of the defense so far this morning? >> well, jose, i think that so far what we have seen from the defense is exactly what i would have expected, the defense does not necessarily have to convince every one of those jurors that he's innocent, however, they do have to at least convince the jury that the prosecution has not met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that's what you're seeing. i saw them attack the narrative that was trying to be advanced by the prosecution, which is one thing i expected. i also saw them speak to the lack of physical evidence, which was another thing i expected. so, again, keep in mind they don't necessarily need everyone to believe their client. i think that's one thing that people sometimes get confused, it is not a question necessarily of whether you believe the defendant. it is whether the prosecution has met its burden, whether they have satisfied this burden beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case, it appears as though the defense is making the argument that, look, they have not and that's why you need to acquit my client and they're doing a fairly good job at pointing out the ways in which reasonable doubt still exists -- with the evidence that has been presented. >> yeah, i mean, the attorney over and over talking about how the fact that, you know, his client is a liar and is a drug addict, but that jump from going to that to be the killer of his wife and son, is that -- that jump which is kind of tough for the prosecution, laura, to be able to prove. >> not only that, but the lack of motive at least for the defense team. they have never bought into this theory as they wouldn't being the defense that he had any reason to commit such heinous crimes. the prosecution's theory is that he wanted to try to distract from this impending financial doom, and invoke sympathy in the public and everybody -- everyone there by killing his wife and son, so that they wouldn't get on to the fact that he had all of these financial frauds going on at the same time. that is a theory that is just not intuitive. and that's what you see the defense trying to call out there, saying that's just not something that jives for most people. and i think that's pretty effective. you heard witness after witness testify this was a loving family, they got one witness on the stand there, a prosecution witness, calling them lovey-dovey. another one saying how much hef, you also see the defense leaning into what is perhaps the most damning evidence, which is this video that is taped by his son before the murders and you hear the defense saying, there is no animosity, there's no screaming, there's no fighting, and you would think if that was a video that was recorded right before the murders take place, you would think ladies and gentlemen you would hear some anger there, but you don't. it is effective you hear them for the first time embracing that video when the prosecution sees it as its strongest piece of evidence. >> so, ellison, walk us through what we can expect for the remainder of the day. >> reporter: yeah, jose, we should probably have another hour from the defense here. if i can pick up on what laura touched on in the kennel video, it was also an interesting moment, i thought, when you had the defense attorney jim griffin also seemed to try to touch a little on what the prosecution had of late, where they had been raising questions about the sincerity of alex murdaugh's struggles with addiction and when they were talking about that kennel video, they seemed to make an appeal to the sympathies of the jury saying he lied being down there because he's an addict, saying addiction is real, and addicts lie and steal and that's what happened here. in terms of what else to expect after the defense rests, we will have a rebuttal from the state, from the prosecution, then this will head to the jury. my producer was able to go into that jury room to see where they would be deliberating when they do get to that point. it is a very small room, jose, a very big table in there. not a whole lot else and when we were speaking with a court official, they said that the jury will be able to have the physical documents that have been entered into evidence with them. that's photographs, that's documents, the timeline, all of that, but video, they will not have access to that in that room. if they want to do anything on the computer, play back any videos, go through that evidence, they have to make a request to the judge and have to go back into the courtroom to see that there. we have also been told by court sources that the judge plans to have the jury deliberate until 10:00 p.m. tonight and tomorrow if it is necessary. jose? >> so, charles, talk about how important or big a deal was it that right before today's deliberations, the process started this morning, the judge removed a juror. >> very significant, jose. this is why you have alternates regardless of the stage the case is in. you keep your alternates the entire time, especially in the case as high profile as this. it is pretty interesting because what happened was apparently this juror was having a conversation with someone else, and then someone else basically informed the court that the juror was speaking about the case to a person who was not affiliated with the court, an sent the judge's instructions. this is something that calls for many different interviews to take place. apparently the juror wasn't entirely forth coming but the judge decided it was in the best interest of justice to remove this juror and insert an alternate. it goes to show how much conversation is taking place around this trial. this is a really big deal. not just that, but the fact that someone knew that they were talking to a juror, and then told the court and informed them shows how many people are watching this, how closely it is being scrutinized and how much is at stake in terms of the size, the scope and the impact that this is having on the surrounding south carolinian community. i would say that it is not a normal occurrence to have something like this happen, but the fact that it did just tells you how invested people really are. >> and, laura, how -- this comes one day after prosecutors painted murdaugh as a liar, a thief, under immense pressure. how has the defense strategy today been able to -- has it been at all successful in, like, as a counterpoint to what was said and shown yesterday? >> i think they have been able to sort of attack the general theory of motive. what they haven't been able to do, for obvious reasons because it is really hard, is that there is so many videos that the prosecution has been able to play of alex murdaugh lying on camera. he is on tape in multiple different scenarios, telling law enforcement that he was not down by the kennels, by the shed, where the murders later take place. he says it with a straight face, he says it calmly. the prosecution was trying to use it to show the jury, look, ladies and gentlemen, how easily he lies. and if you see how easily he lies in these videos, you can see how easily he lied to you here on the stand. that is not a thing that is easy to counter and that's what the defense has challenged to do here today. >> ellison barber, charles coleman, laura jarrett, thank you so very much. we're keeping an eye on what is happening in that south carolina courtroom. we'll get back to it as soon as it begins. i want to give you other breaking news this morning. we just heard from secretary of state antony blinken on the sidelines of the g-20 summit where earlier today he met with the russian foreign minister, sergey lavrov, for the first time since russia invaded ukraine over a year ago. allie raffa joins us from washington, d.c. to walk us through this. what did we learn about blinken's meeting today? >> reporter: good morning. that's right. this is the first face to face meeting these two have had since the war in ukraine began. we know that they have shared some phoneconversations, but this is the first time they met in person since that milestone. we know blinken initiated this meeting that lasted around ten minutes and says he hit on three main topics discussed with lavrov. he urged lavrov to convince president putin to reverse his decision to no longer commit in that last nuclear arms treaty between the u.s. and russia, that was cut a little over a week ago now. remember, that was set to expire in 2021. then presidents biden and putin agreed to an extension of that treaty. of course, then, president putin decided to bow out of that treaty a little over a week ago. blinken also saying that he reinforced his commitment to ukraine for as long as this war goes on. listen to a bit of what he had to say during this press conference about that. >> i told the foreign minister what i and so many others said last week at the united nations and what so many g-20 foreign ministers said today, end this war of aggression, engage in meaningful diplomacy that can produce a just and durable peace. >> reporter: blinken also stressed to lavrov that the russia should release former marine paul whelan who we know is serving a 16-year sentence in russia for alleged espionage charges that the u.s. says are unreasonable, are not fair. blinken saying that the united states offered a proposal to russia that russia has not answered or agreed upon. so, just the fact that lavrov agreed to this face to face meeting is significant. but it underscores how important it is for these lines of communication to continue as this war enters its second year, as well as russia enters a new phase in this war with a new countermeasure going into place in ukraine. >> allie, thank you very much. now to breaking news here at home, michigan attorney general dana nestle says the fbi told her she was a target of a heavily armed man who threatened to kill jewish-elected officials in michigan. that man arrested last month. ken dilanian is with us this morning. good morning. what do we know about this? >> good morning, jose. jackie jean carpenter iii arrested in mid-february. the documents say he made threats on twitter to kill jewish members of michigan state government, including the attorney general and congresswoman elissa slotkin, a federal official. court documents say he threatened to use deadly force if police pulled him over for his expired license plates. the fbi said they learned he had been previously arrested on assault charges and he owned a number of firearms including handguns, shotguns and rifles. a twitter account that the fbi said is connected to carpenter says he was fired from the university of michigan for refusing a covid-19 vaccine. the university saying it employed carpenter for ten years and let him go in 2021 but has not said why. he's being held without bail in federal court, jose. >> ken dilanian in washington, thank you very much. the defense in that alex murdaugh trial is starting back to its closing arguments. let's listen in. members of the jury back in. so they are about to enter the courtroom. there you see murdaugh with his legal team, conferring. and they're about to begin this -- they took that short ten-minute break as the defense arguments, the closing arguments were under way. just about -- a little bit after 10:00 this morning eastern time they began. the members of the jury are being brought in. charles coleman continues to be with us. charles, that ten-minute break gives them, i guess all sides, a little bit of time to confer, but it's a process by which we can expect, charles, the defense to go into all different aspects of this -- the accusations. >> well, absolutely, jose. i think one of the fatal flaws that the prosecution made during this is they tried to relitigate every fact of this case rather than streamlining their arguments and focusing on one or two central themes and telling the jury what the case is about. why that's important is because what they have done now is this opened up a number of different avenues for the defense to poke holes in their case and add reasonable doubt, which i think is what they're going to do as we watch now. >> charles, thank you very much. back to the courtroom. >> -- fired by the same shotgun, that the shot shells, the things that rolled under the door, were fired by the same gun. that's all he testified to is the shotgun. they have put a lot of guns in evidence here, they have nothing to do with the crime. so we don't know which shotgun was used. could have been a shotgun bought at walmart that afternoon, could have been a 20-year-old shotgun, but all the evidence, ballistic evidence is shot shells were fired by the same gun. and that's -- don't know that you really need an expert for that, but that's what the testimony was on the shotgun. with regard to 300 blackout, you recall that the this guy, paul greer, testified that the cartridges found at the crime scene, and maggie was shot with a 300 blackout, that those -- that the tool marks, called tool marks, that the extractor and ejector marks from the cartridges found at the crime scene matched extractor and ejector tool marks on some cartridges found at the house and some found at the driving range. excuse me, shooting range. what he didn't say was that where the firing pin breaches that cartridge, one of the most reliable cases, it did not match. no match. and he also did not -- did not compare projectiles, there was another projectile found, projectile, that's the bullet, that's the bullet thing, that goes -- it went into maggie's body and broke up, but one went into the doghouse and was found in the dog bed. so they have that. and what they did not do is take that projectile and dig projectiles out of the berm where the shooting range was and compare it to see if they match. and notice he said the ballistic expert can't be 100% sure until you have the gun. you heard my cross examination of agent greer and this tool mark -- ballistic examination is somewhat soft science. coming under criticism. it is what they rely upon. not every investigative lab relies upon it. that's what they did here. but it is not gospel. it is not gospel. another thing about the -- about the 300 blackout, he in his closing mr. waters repeatedly said that a, alex bought it, alex bought it, we're talking about the replacement, i don't know, alex bought it, well, alex didn't buy it, the evidence shows maggie bought kept saying defendant's. it is not the defendant's. it was paul's gun. it wasn't alex's gun. paul's gun. at one point in time during his closing argument yesterday, mr. waters re-enacted a shooting scenario, if you recall, i'll do my best, but he stands up here and he says that alex shoots paul in the chest one time. and 999,999 times out of 1 million, that person is dead. he puts the shotgun down, and he has 300 blackout right here, because he is so smart and so diabolical that he's going to stage it so it looks like two shooters, so he's got a 300 blackout here, a shotgun that he just took his son out, but his son was 1 in a million, he says. 1 in a million, comes this way, so alex has to put the 300 blackout down, pick up the shotgun, and shoot paul. where in the world does that scenario reside other than in mr. waters' mind? it doesn't. it doesn't. there is no evidence to support anything like that. none. none. and the fact that he has to go to such gymnastics to come up with alex staging a two-shooter theory, i ought to tell you, there is two-shooters out there. i ought to tell you someone to do that. another curious point in mr. waters' closing argument yesterday involves paul's intuitive talents. you will recall that alex informed agents that paul was an intuitive little dude. that merriam procter, maggie's sister, said that maggie referred to paul as her little detective. and particularly when it came to trying to root out whether alex was still doing drugs. and he sort of left it there. left it there for you to then take it and run with it as if, oh, paul must have -- paul must have found alex using drugs, there must have been a confrontation down there at the kennel, and that must have been what happened. now, he didn't go that far in his argument, but he laid it out there for you to run with. but that was clearly the implication. and i want to tell you first, there are no facts to support that, none whatsoever. let me add another scenario, this equally as plausible. what if paul, the detective, learned the source of drugs that were being sold to his dad. what if paul, the detective, goes to that drug source. says cut it out. that's my dad, you're hurting my family. and if you don't, i'm going to tell on you. turn you in. and what if sources -- dangerous drug gang. >> i object. >> those were plausible scenarios they were throwing out to you and that you can think up many equally plausible scenarios. but you have to decide the evidence based on the facts that the state puts before you. not theories, not inferences, not speculation, but cold-hard facts. mr. waters also said that alex, the master liar, accused shelly smith, blanca and perhaps another witness of lying. he never did such a thing. he never accused anybody of lying from this witness stand. now, i've been around long enough to know, long enough to know that witnesses can misremember things. and believe them to be true. and frankly, i'm the biggest offender of that trait in my household. i convince myself i remembered something accurately, and i will have an argument with my wife until she shows me photographic evidence that i'm just wrong and that's what it takes. that happens. people misremember things. but because we point out that there is an inconsistent fact, doesn't mean we're saying someone lied. and we never did that. we never did that. the -- one example, sister marion, one example of misremembering, sister marion said she spoke with maggie about 7:00 p.m. wh