Defense takes aim at witnesses, evidence in Honey Jordan trial

Two key eyewitnesses, who were near the scene when the shooting happened, were unable to identify Aguirre during the trial.

"These people were in close proximity to where this incident occurred," said Maniates. Perhaps, the defense lawyer said, the lack of the shooter's identification was because the shooting was shocking, unexepected or over very quickly.

A description of the shooter initially used by police was a Hispanic male, 25 to 35 years old, who possibly had tattoos. That description, Maniates explained to jurors, points to another man named "Chino," who codefendant-turned-witness Ruben Garcia testified was his boss.

"See, it's what's missing in this case that's the problem," Maniates said. "We have holes big enough to drive a ship through."

Garcia, who testified under the terms of a plea bargain which gives him a maximum of 12 years in state prison, was described by the defense lawyer as a liar, a cheat and a thief.

Garcia has a problem that Aguirre doesn't have, said Maniates. The victim's cell phone was used to call Garcia's house, while no calls were made to Aguirre's residence.

"This witness is not credible. The witness has every reason in the world to lie," Maniates said.

But on rebuttal argument, Deputy District Attorney Robert Bulloch said the consistency and details of Garcia's testimony corroborate the facts. Garcia has no reason to lie, Bulloch said, because his plea deal is complete, nothing can be changed.

"He's got the deal of the century," Bulloch said.

Bulloch also reminded jurors that any unanswered questions raised by the defense do not prove Aguirre's innocence. Two witnesses identified Aguirre as Jordan's shooter, the prosecutor said.

"Hold him accountable for her murder," said Bulloch.

After the closing arguments and some final jury instructions, Judge Colin Bilash handed the case to the jurors for deliberation.

Two see a report from Bulloch's opening argument Thursday morning, click here.