Transcript for David Pietz Guilty of Murder 7 Years After Wife's Death
guilty verdict in the case of the seattle man, david pietz. The family of nicole pietz was relieved and emotional, after they had seen their long quest for justice result in a conviction. We, the jury, found the defendant -- Reporter: For nicole pietz's family, it was a long end. David pietz was convicted of killing his wife, nicole. Strangling her with his own hands and dumping her in the wood. Listen to her sister, tanya, when pietz was moved out in handcuffs. You're going to hell, pietz. Reporter: And her 72-year-old mother could finally exhale. The last 7 1/2 years have been torture for us. You know, we -- she'll never come back. And we never got to say good-bye to her. No mother should have ever to bury her child. Reporter: Gael schneider hounded police for six years to arrest her son-in-law. Making life miserable for him. He murdered my daughter. Reporter: You kept the pressure on him. I did. And had he gotten out, I would have done -- started doing it again because, you know, nicki needs justice. Reporter: It took the jury less than a day and a half, despite what many thought was a weak case. No hard evidence. All circumstantial. But the jury bought it. They reviewed three pieces that go to david's character. His 911 call. Voice messages to nicole's phone. And it showed david to be an uncaring liar who was sketchy about the facts. David pietz's lawyers are not giving in. There will be an appeal in this case. Reporter: One sentence, david pietz faces between 10 and 18 years, for a murder that he may have gotten away with, if not for the persistence of nicole's mother. For "good morning america," neal karlinsky, abc news, seattle. Dan, seven years after the fact. No physical evidence. No witnesses. Still a conviction. And for a long time, they didn't bring this case because they didn't think they had enough evidence. There was new evidence that came forward in the form of dna and cell phone records that allowed them to move forward. But this is a case of putting the pieces of the puzzle together. The prosecutors had to bring together a little bit of dna evidence, a little bit of testimony that showed his statements were inconsistent, in certain cases and piece it together. I think if they put those piece together, the most important thing they needed. The last thing that they were asking was all related to his credibility. His credibility and his character given that, he was on trial, why not take the stand? Because of those reasons. Because of the inconsistencies. As a legal matter, absolutely not. As a legal matter, when you have questions, inconsistencies, issues he doesn't want to have to address on the witness stand. Including affairs, et cetera, i think it was the right call for him not to take the stand. Dan, thanks very much. Let's get the weather from sam. We're going to start with
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.