seen. one more thing, mikaela, under the code the defense does not have to give us notice as to what they plan to argue. so we don t know yet what exactly they re going to do. we don t know whether or not they will put dzhokhar tsarnaev on the stand to humanize him. impaired with weed for that entire siege, the days leading up to it and the days after when he tries to hide the evidence and influence his friends to do so? yeah i don t think it s a viable argument at all. but as joey said earlier, you take whatever you got. you throw it along the wall. you hope some kasscaserole sticks with one juror. he has to stay off that witness stand. the reality is that he would be savaged be i the prosecution and it would be so much he would have to admit. not only that in terms of exposing him to a satisfy annual
closing arguments and depending on how long those go they can take the balance of the day. will you hear the judge give the charges the instructions. then the jury can get the case first thing today or tomorrow morning, mikaela i think we will have a verdict in a day or two. speedy and rapid, absolutely. we know the defense attorney well versed in this strategy. she actually said in those opening statements it was him, not refuting the fact that her client was there. what was her end game? what is her strategy? it s one strategy only. the reality is this. what she s attempting to do is spare his life. there is no really mystery in terms of whether he will be convicted. you no ehe will be convicted. absolutely. it was him. i think what she is trying to do is establish a context upon which it was him. he was the puppet. his brother led the way. he was controlled. hess manipulated. in the defense case they talked about supplies and bomb components. guess what mikaela, they were
cross examination t. other this eng is he could wreck his own defense. does he say i want to die? please put me to death. that certainly, if the jury believes he wants to do i, maybe they don t put him to death. there is an interesting psychology and die namic you will play out and obviously we re presuming the jury will find him guilty. i think at a good presumption to be making. there is no doubt about his guilt that he was involved. talk to us what we can expect. because the might be knew. interestingly enough mikaela, what you will expect is the why he did it. i think you will learn who he is. during the trial, itself we heard from one friend of his. that s it. that s a lot because the judge has limited what the defense is able to do in terms of the blame the older defense, why? it s not a defense, it s a mitigating factor. you have the opportunity the defense does to speak to the issues of mitigation. so we will learn about his family history. how he grew up what was his