Transcript for Polo Mogul John Goodman Denies Drunk Driving in Court
We begin with the high stakes testimony of the retrial of John Goodman for DUI manslaughter. He claimed it was brake failure that caused the crash. Lindsey Davis has the story. I meant to grab the gear shift. That's the last thing I remember. Reporter: Blaming his Bentley. What's that multi-millionaire John Goodman while taking the stand in his defense Wednesday. The owner of the international polo club, pleading not guilty, insisting that the brakes on his $200,000 car weren't working properly when he sent 23-year-old Scott Wilson's Hyundai into a canal, where he drowned. You believe that your Bentley did not work, right? Yes. Reporter: He was going to buy a frosty, and the last thing he remembers is trying to apply the brakes. The first thing I remember is just seeing white -- white everywhere. And not -- Stars? Yes. And -- yes and, white and not knowing where I was. Reporter: The prosecution claiming Goodman was drunk at the time of the accident after working up nearly a $300 tab partying at the swanky players club. You ordered 18 drinks at the players club. Yes. Reporter: But Goodman says he only had three of those drinks. The rest were for other people. He also claims he didn't get drunk until after the crash when he left the scene and stumbled on a friends home where he found alcohol. Do you know what liquor you are drank? No. Did you pour it into a glass or drink the liquor? Drank out of the bottle. Reporter: And a medical specialist saying he was disorrented not because of the drinking, but a concussion. That was like a concussion, a mild traumatic brain injury. We to want bring in Dan Abrams. Is the jury convinced? The heart of the prosecution is my Bentley malfunctions, that's tough. This is the second trial. He was convicted the first time. He testified the first time. He's got to convince the jury in a way he didn't the first time. He's added a couple things to the testimony. For example, saying he pumped the brake on the Bentley. Reached for the emergency brake. Things he didn't mention in the first case. So that's changing here. I think they're hoping that the jury's going buy this story this time. But the heart of this case still comes down to the question of, how did he get drunk? He says it was in this man cave after the incident course. Prosecutors are saying no, no, you had 12 to 13 drinks before you got into your car. We're also seeing, he's admitted that he has a speech impediment. We have seen that on the stand. Why is that such an important point? Because the defense wants these jurors to believe that the first witness who saw him after the crash said he seemed like he was slurring his words, it wasn't slurring. But it was stammering, it was a speech impediment. And you're seeing that on the stand. One of the key things for the jurors, do they believe it? Do they believe this is real or something that's manufactured to tailor his defense? Boy, new revelations all the time. Thanks. And now turn to the
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.