Transcript for Utah Man Accused of Killing His Wife Takes the Stand
A lot of good information. But first, the Utah man accused ever killing his wife to cash in a $1 million insurance policy. Conrad Truman is expected back on the stand this morning. Neal Karlinsky has the story. Reporter: He is at center of this murder case, and Conrad Truman faced the jury to defend himself. Did you shoot your wife? No. Did you kill your wife? No. Truman is accused of murdering his wife, Heidi Truman, in 2012. It was rafr a night of drinking and watching "Dexter," about a serial killer. Much of the trial is focused on his demeanor. His frantic 911 call. I really don't know what happened. Reporter: Reports that he threat tonight kill them if they didn't save his wife. And his at times erratic police interrogati interrogation. You are a jerk, man, you are a jerk. I was just confused. I didn't know what was going on. Reporter: Even his behavior around her body, scrutinized. I was touching her feet. And I felt her leagring leg. And I thought why would she shoot her legs to commit suicide. Reporter: But what about police allegations that he changed story, she may have shot herself by accident or a gunshot from outside the house. Can you explain why you have given different versions as to what may have occurred? I know I didn't have a gun, didn't shoot a gun. Reporter: His lawyer asked to have the case dismissed Thursday, saying there's no evidence that he fired a shot. The judge refused, and Conrad Truman is expected to be back on the stand later today for a grillingly prosecutors. For "Good morning America," Neal Karlinsky, Seattle. Dan Abrams is here. The defendant on the stand, it's crucial. Once they take the stand. I always say it's an important moment in the case. In this case, it's even more important. Why? Because the most compelling evidence against him are the conflicting statements. One point, it's an intruder. Shot through the window, no bullet holes in the window. It was a mistake. I think she fell and accidently killed herself. He's completely changed his story. And now he's taking the stand. And whether the jurors believe him becomes the entirety of the case. Cuts both ways. It could be an argument for staying off -- His lawyers did a mock cross examination. He must have been able to survive a mock cross examination to put him on the stand. There's not a ton of evidence against him. It's one of these cases, you look at it, wow, his Y's fishy. But there may not be enough evidence to convict. So for him to testify, suddenly provides the prosecution with the opportunity, if they effectively cross examine him, to have some new evidence. That's the question, no physical evidence he shot the gun. What do prosecutors do? They have to focus on the inconsistent statements. They have the medical examiner's testimony, suggesting she was killed at very close range. Seems to rule out the possibility she was shot at from far away and rules out the possibility of an accident, which are the two possible defense theories. If you believe the medical examiner, the defense is in trouble. But they have to focus on the inconsistent statements. This is where being a good lawyer matters. It tests your chops in the way you cross-examine this defendant. If this prosecutor is effective, could be problems for the defendant. If the defendant survives the cross examination, could be a different story.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.