hour with an unusual murder trial under way in California. Paul curry is accused of poisoning his wife back in 1994. 0 years ago. It's taken prosecutors that long to make the case against him and... See More
hour with an unusual murder trial under way in California. Paul curry is accused of poisoning his wife back in 1994. 0 years ago. It's taken prosecutors that long to make the case against him and ABC's Cecilia Vega has that story. Reporter: It is a cold case that had authorities stumped for years. This morning the man who police say almost got away with murder will be in a southern California courtroom. Jury selection is under way in the trial of Paul curry, the 57-year-old accused of poisoning his wife Linda 20 years ago cashing in on insurance money and moving to another state to start a new life. This is pure greed and unfortunately it's the kind of greet that allowed someone to kill the person he was supposed to protect. Reporter: They met at the San Onofre lab and lived here in San Clemente but according to court records just nine months into their marriage Linda started miysteriously having symptoms. A year later she died. Eventually forensic testing confirmed Linda, a nonsmoker, had fatal levels of nicotine in her system. But as prosecutors told our los Angeles station in 2010, it took years and more testing before authorities could link Paul curry to her death. Science's ability to determine the amount of nicotine in somebody's system and how lethal it is and timing of it was able to help us. Reporter: Curry was arrested four years ago in small town in Kansas where he worked in government overseeing city building inspections. He remarried and lived off a $400,000 insurance payout from Linda's death. But legal observers say the case brings challenges for prosecutors. This case may have unique problems due to its age. Witnesses may have passed away. Their memories may have failed. Reporter: Curry pleaded not guilty. If convicted he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole. For "Good morning America," Cecilia Vega, ABC news, los Angeles. ABC's Dan Abrams is here with more on this. No statute of limitations when it comes to a murder case like this. 20 years later here we are. He's a been a suspect from the beginning. Not one of those cases where new DNA evidence came to light and they were able to find it based on new technology because, remember, this is a husband and wife who lived in the same house so his DNA would be everywhere. It seems that there's some sort of new technology or new testing that was done that allowed them to determine exactly how she died but what this really comes down to to me is a reinvigorated investigation in 2007. A district attorney who decided to take a new look at this case, do some new testing in this case and now has filed charges in 2010. As we heard in the report 20 years later. That's a long time. It's not going to be easy. It hasn't been easy from the beginning. They haven't been able to file charges because it's been a tough case and put on top of that you have these witnesses who may have passed away, may have forgotten thing, et cetera, this is not going to be an easy case and one of the key questions, of course, will end up being exact cause of death. They're going to probably battle over could it have been something else? Exactly how did she die? Are we certain that it happened at someone else's hand, et cetera. So what do you think is the biggest challenge? They have a lot of problems here on both sides of had case but when it comes to the defense, there's a little nugget about a missing Rolex watch that she had had that the authorities say he put on the insurance form that it was stolen. They say he gave it to her sister. Why is that important? Because it goes to his credibility. Mining that if the jurors don't believe him, that could be a big problem. Something like that 13 as part of the defense, a small point that could end up being really important? Thanks.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.