Note: Below are informal notes taken by an attendee, these are not official
Defense attorney, Andrew Stine pointed to the case law presented by the prosecutors's ofice and said those cases had the "spark of life" possibility whereas in the Abrams case there was no such thing. He argued that the officers had no good reason to enter the premises, Abrams was a resident and had an expectation of privacy. He also pointed out that people die naturally every day, there was no drag marks and no yelling from the house.
Prosecutor, Mr. Raska, reinterated that there was a neighbor who knows Abrams' habits, had not seen Abrams, approached the house after 4 weeks and noticed a smell and flies on inside of windows. Neighbor called 911. Officers noted the grass was overgrown, they tried knocking on door, when no answer did a perimeter search, found an unsecure window which increased the apprehension factor that some one may have entered the house illegally. When the dog's dead body was seen through the window, the concerned neighbor commented that Abrams would never leave the dog. Neighbor said Abrams took good care of the dog, spent a lot of money on the dog and would not leave the dog like this. This also increased the level of apprehension and so the officers entered the house. The prosecutor touted Judge McKibben's denial of the suppression of evidence that was decided earlier in the proceedings.
One of the question by Judge Maxwell directed to Stine on his rebuttal, How do we exclude the possibility of another mammal being in the house and in need? Stine fell back on the fact that the Founding Fathers wrote the 4th amendment to protect our privacy, the government is carving exceptions in that amendment.