Hi and welcome to the 17th episode of Undisclosed, the State v. Adnan Sayyad.

This episode is in closing.

My name is Rabiajadri. I'm an attorney and National Security fellow, and I blog at split the moon.com, and I'm joining

with my colleague Susan Simpson and Colin Miller.

Susan is an associate at the vocal blog group in Washington, D.C., and she blogs at the View

from L.L.2.

And Colin is an associate dean and professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law,

and he's also the blog editor of the evidence prof blog.

...Blog.

...theirc last week the state rested its case against Adnan, presenting its witnesses in evidence.

It took nearly a month to do so.

So now comes Tina's turn to lay out her defense of Adnan, to rebut the state's evidence, to present new evidence, and to tell the jury Adnan's side of the story.

Before we get to the witness testimony, there are a few exhibits that Gutierrez tried to get into her case.

Some she succeeded on, some she did not.

For instance, she tried to introduce the videotape of Jay's initial September 7th plea hearing.

But the guilty plea is ultimately excluded for a few reasons, for most of which is that it wasn't actually a guilty plea.

As the court points out, although the state's calling in a guilty plea, it's not actually one.

So what's the purpose in introducing it?

Because on a real guilty plea, Jay would have given a statement of facts and explained what he was confessing to.

That didn't happen

here. It's just him saying basically, I will plead guilty at a future date, and nothing more.

Gutierrez does try and claim that it's actually impeachment evidence because Jay testified that he

...