Blaine Alexander

The defense called only one witness, a medical salesperson who visited the doctor's office.

She testified she saw a loving relationship between Rebecca and her husband.

The one witness you did call, why did you feel that testimony was important?

If there were multiple witnesses on the plaintiff's side who said terrible things about Rebecca's character, why should the jury believe one person who says positive things about her versus the many who lined up to say negative things about her?

Well, the focus should be on whether she committed the murder or not.

I went to great lengths to say you don't have to like her just because she said all these things and potentially did all these bad things doesn't mean that she killed her husband.

So you were trying to draw a line that even if she is a bad person, not the greatest individual, that doesn't make her a murderer.

He also reminded jurors that she was on trial for her husband's killing, not for alleged financial misconduct.

Finally, it was in the jury's hands.

Unlike a criminal case, in a civil trial, the bar is lower for jurors to find against the defendant.

Now the jury has the case.

How are you feeling?

After two and a half hours of deliberations, they reached a verdict.

She was found liable for likely being involved in the murder, and the family was awarded quite a large sum.

The jury found Rebecca Schwartz liable for intentionally killing or participating in her husband's death.

As for the amount of money jurors awarded Carter and his family...

$200 million is hitting her in the pocketbook.

And that has got to be devastating for someone that is so greedy.

You hear the verdict, you hear the dollar amount.

What did you think?