The prosecution rested its case yesterday, finishing its portrayal of Wharton undergraduate Irina Malinovskaya as a jealous woman whose obsession drove her to the murder of her ex-lover's then-girlfriend, Irina Zlotnikov, in 2004.
Jurors also saw the defense's side for the first time yesterday afternoon, hearing expert testimony that the forensic evidence should absolve of her of the crime.
Similar to the last two trials, the prosecution spent the last two weeks detailing desperate e-mails and surprise visits from Malinovskaya to her ex-boyfriend, Robert Bondar, in the months after Bondar broke up with her.
Several eyewitnesses have also placed Malinovskaya outside of Bondar's apartment where Zlotnikov was killed the morning of the murder.
But the state, which has already suffered two hung juries, did change its tactics somewhat, most notably by bringing the jury to the crime scene Wednesday to give context to the dozens of hours of testimony they have heard thus far.
Prosecutors finished their case yesterday by calling two New Castle County detectives. The first, Anthony DiNardo, testified that he found a claw hammer in the accused's apartment, which is consistent with the medical examiner's analysis that Zlotnikov was bludgeoned to death with a blunt object.
Under cross-examination from defense attorney Joe Hurley, DiNardo admitted, however, that no bodily fluid or residue was found on Malinovskaya's hammer.
Detective Joseph Szczerba also testified that he discovered several lists written by Malinovskaya, including one found in her apartment that detailed reasons why she did not commit the murder, implying that Malinovskaya was planning to use the list to lie to police.
In the afternoon, the focus shifted to the defense, which called two forensic experts to show that it was highly unlikely that Malinovskaya was inside Bondar's apartment at the time of the murder.
DNA examiner Charity Holland compared the DNA from the hair Zlotnikov was found clutching to blood stains from Bondar, Zlotnikov and Malinovskaya and concluded that none of the three were a match.
Tension rose in the courtroom when a recess was called to solve a dispute between defense attorney Eugene Maurer and state attorney Paul Wallace.
Maurer wanted to use forensic pathologist Ali Hameli to prove that the medical examiners, who arrived nine hours after the body was found, should have been called to the crime scene earlier, while Wallace alleged that a search warrant was needed.
Delaware Superior Court Judge James Vaughn sided with Maurer, and Hameli testified that, in his experience, medical examiners are usually called to the scene immediately.
"That was the rule and still should be the rule," he said.
Hameli also said the injuries were caused by a blunt force and that the assailant had to be standing close enough to be splattered by the victim's blood.
He added that if Malinovskaya committed the crime, there should have been blood found in her car.
"I would expect that some blood even not visible to the naked eye to be transferred to the interior of the vehicle."
It had previously been established that Malinovskaya's rental car was not cleaned, and no traces of blood were found in it.
Defense will continue with testimony tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
Copy Editor Alyssa Schwenk contributed reporting to this article.
