The prosecution and defense in the murder trial of former U. Virginia lacrosse player George Huguely rested their cases Saturday and presented closing arguments. The jury will begin deliberations Wednesday. Huguely stands charged with the first-degree murder of U.Va. student Yeardley Love.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Dave Chapman seemingly conceded Huguely did not intentionally kill Love but maintained he stole Love’s laptop the night of her death. A felony murder conviction would hold Huguely responsible for any death which occurred during the commission of a robbery and find him culpable of first-degree murder regardless of his intent.

“Is it killing in the commission of the robbery or is it [murder in the] second degree?” Chapman asked the jury. “The woman will never be able to tell you what happened to her, but the evidence tells you she was killed in commission of a robbery.”

Huguely’s attorney, Francis McQ. Lawrence, countered that a robbery requires intent and argued that on the night of Love’s death, “Nothing could be further from [Huguely’s] mind than robbery.” He likewise dismissed the second-degree charge as needing intent when there clearly was none.

During Chapman’s final rebuttal argument, he stressed that murder in the second degree does not require intent, to which Lawrence interjected, “He is in error!”

A visibly unnerved Huguely questioned his lawyer as Chapman said, “I resent the misstatement of the law again and again [by counsel]. When somebody else’s little girl doesn’t wake up in the morning because of criminal behavior, the law will be followed in the City of Charlottesville.”

According to Virginia law, second-degree murder does not require intent to kill but does necessitate malice aforethought, defined as the intent to commit grievous bodily injury.

Chapman’s closing argument made an emotional appeal to the jury in describing Love’s death as unnecessary, terrifying and tragic.

“On May 2, 2010, Yeardley Love made a decision that was life-changing for her, her mother and her sister.” Chapman said. “She made the choice to stay in the safety of her home – she used good judgment… That turned out to be fatal.”

Chapman recreated “the sight and sound and fury” of Love’s last hours amid audible sobs from her family in the courtroom. Chapman portrayed Huguely as having woken Love from her sleep and then maliciously having left her dying face-down in a pool of her own blood.

“George Huguely had had an extraordinary amount to drink,” Chapman said. “[But] does alcohol make you do things you never do ordinarily, or does it simply loosen the restraints?”

Lawrence followed Chapman by admitting Huguely “bears responsibility for [Love’s] death” but rationalized his behavior as an extreme instance not outside the scope of their troubled relationship or “the environment of the young 20-somethings.”

Love “didn’t have any problem going to George’s house, going through the door, yelling at him, hitting him with her purse,” Lawrence said. Huguely’s act “was not calculated — it’s what you get… he’s a boy athlete… stupid, unthoughtful, loud, clumsy, intoxicated.”

Lawrence was forced to abandon medical elements of his defense because his co-counsel, Rhonda Quagliana, had improperly communicated with some of their medical witnesses.

A witness cannot discuss the substance of prior testimony with any other witnesses or attorneys during the trial, but the Commonwealth produced email correspondence between Quagliana and three defense medical experts, Dr. Jan Leestma, Dr. Jack Daniel and Dr. Ronald Uscinski. The emails disclosed information about the Wednesday testimony of Leestma to Uscinski, who took the stand Saturday.

The Honorable Edward L. Hogshire delayed Saturday’s start so Chapman could question Uscinski about the extent of his improper knowledge without the jury present. Uscinski repeatedly denied any memory of reading Quagliana’s emails, saying he may have received them but has “4,000 unread emails at home.”

Uscinski would only admit to reading an email he directly responded to but still contended that he was “no more or less prepared” to discuss the material presented in the email “than [he] would have been before the communication.”

Lawrence described Quagliana’s actions as “amazingly thoughtless” but said “it wasn’t calculated.” Hogshire decided not to exclude Uscinski from testifying but barred him from speaking on any of the subjects mentioned in the emails, including reprofusion, the effects of CPR and cerebrovascular damage. As a result, Uscinski, a clinical neurosurgeon, only testified that Love’s injuries did not stem from blunt force trauma, but he could not speak to an alternative explanation.

Dr. Leestma had testified previously that the hemorrhaging seen in Love’s brain resulted from CPR administered by medical rescue. Chapman moved to strike Leestma’s testimony entirely, and the defense elected not to let Dr. Daniel take the stand.

Huguely also did not testify in his own trial and the prosecution did not call any rebuttal witnesses before resting.