Transcript for Closing Arguments Set to Begin in Polo Mogul's DUI Manslaughter Retrial
We begin with the latest on the retrial of John Goodman for DUI manslaughter. Critical testimony this weekend focused on his Bentley. Matt Gutman has the story. Reporter: A $200,000 Bentley. Front and center in the retrial of multimillionaire polo mogul John Goodman. Pretty car. It's a very nice car. Reporter: He's charged with DUI manslaughter after crashing into 23-year-old Scott Wilson's Hyundai in 2010, plowing it into a canal where the engineering graduate drowned. I went to grab my gear shift. That's the last thing I remember. Reporter: He claims he didn't crash because he was drunk but because his luxury car malfunctioned, preventing him from braking popperly. You believe that your Bentley malfunctioned that night? I believe it did. Reporter: May ca mechanical engineer called to testify. Is there any indication that the vehicle was operating in anything other than the way it was designed to be driven on February 12, 2010? No, there was not. Reporter: The defense challenging that expert witness about his motives for testify. Because Bentley is paying half of his retainer for him on the case. So Bentley has a lot at stake here, don't they? They have an interest in defending their product, is my understanding. And that's why they hired you? Yes. Reporter: The prosecution blaming Goodman was drunk after working up a bar tab near $300. The defense is expected to rest its case later today and closing arguments will begin. For "Good morning America," Matt Gutman, ABC news, Miami. And Dan Abrams here today. What is this case going to turn on? It's less about the Bentley and more about was he drunk? If he was drunk, it is hard to see how -- He says he got drunk after the accident. He says he wept to this man cave. Hard to cruise that term without smiling. He went to an empty home of a friend of his and chugged alcohol after the crash. That's hi he had such a high blood alcohol number. He's not disputing that he was drunk when they took his blood alcohol. He's saying the only run I was drunk was because I drank after the crash, not before it. That, to me, becomes the key question. It appears he's come up for the retrial with a more plausible story. A little bit. A little bit of a different count. On the first trial, they focused on the idea that the Bentley lurched forward. This time, they're saying it was more an issue with the brakes. He was trying to pump them and they didn't work effectively. The fact that it's inconsistent is not helpful. They've gone back, he was convicted the first time. They said, what mistakes did we make in the first trial? How can we do it better? Then you face the charge of shifting stories. Not an easy defense. Thank you, Dan. Amy, this one's for you. To a couple of alleged criminals
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.