- Let's talk about the defense here, Daniel.

What a line from from Correia's own attorney, said he's not the brightest bulb when it comes to doing business.

How did the defense do and how do you defend a case like this with so many charges and apparently so much evidence?

- Yeah, that's an interesting line from the lawyer, Reddington.

In a case like this, where the prosecution has created a people and paper trail that inexorably leads to an inference of guilt, you can't really mount an innocence defense.

You have to plant a seed of reasonable doubt and hope it blossoms into an acquittal, and I think that's what Reddington tried to do by suggesting that Correia isn't the brightest bulb in the world, that he made a youthful mistake a couple of times.

He said something like that during the closing argument, and in fact, the whole defense wasn't an affirmative defense showing that Correia was innocent, but instead it was an effort to impeach the credibility of some of the government witnesses.

The defense only put on three witnesses and they were only used to show inconsistencies or discrepancies in the government witnesses.

It's known as an impeachment strategy.

- Okay, so there is a strategy, but does that type of approach work in a case with so many witnesses, so many different charges?

- That's the big question, Joe.

In a weak case that's more of a house of cards, it can work 'cause you just tap at one of the cards and the whole thing comes crumbling down.

But in a case like this, which is much sturdier, it's a stronger case presented by the prosecution, I'm not sure there's gonna be a spillover effect.

If you try to impeach the credibility of witness A, not sure there's gonna be any ripple effect on witness B.