Nye County Murder Case Update: PVT/Matt Ward Trying To Influence Verdict?

Apparently, the Nye County murder case of the decade is coming to a close Monday, when the defense and prosecution give their closing statements.
I'd like to give you an accurate report from the Pahrump Valley Times about what happened this past week in the case, but the article was so poorly written by Matt "Jerry Sandusky" Ward, that I know it is not very accurate.  But the cheerleading for the prosecution by Ward is inescapable. 
But here goes:
The man accused of murdering his daughter’s 21-year-old boyfriend last year took the stand Wednesday in his own defense.
Daniel Robbins testified in his ongoing murder trial that he didn’t mean to shoot and kill Chris Mundy on Aug. 18, 2011, sticking to the defense strategy that his 1980s Makarov pistol, which he claimed he bought for family protection, accidentally discharged as he had the gun pressed to the young victim’s neck.
Prosecutors used the testimony to attempt to introduce previously unheard evidence to rebut the defense’s assertions that Daniel Robbins, who jurors heard didn’t have an arrest record or criminal history to speak of, was merely a gentle family man compelled to protect his loved ones that night.  http://pvtimes.com/news/jury-to-get-murder-case-on-monday/    (You can just feel the sarcasm in War's writing)
Then Ward writes a lot about a stupid arguments between the defense attorney and prosecuting attorney over some very minor issues.  Seriously, Ward? 
This was the third instance in which the state attempted to admit evidence that would poke holes in the defense’s portrayal of Daniel Robbins as nothing more than a peaceful family man.
It was the second time prosecutors wanted to turn the defendant’s own words against him.
Earlier Judge Robert Lane denied a prosecution effort to admit into the record the password Daniel Robbins used to access his personal Internet account — he and his wife Kathie engaged in a ferocious Internet altercation with Mundy before the shooting. Though not said openly in court, prosecutors made it clear the password would prove Daniel Robbins was not as clean cut as he would have jurors believe, alluding to the use of an expletive in the password.
Defense attorney Arnold Weinstock argued that uttering the password in front of jurors would only inflame them and not serve any purpose in proving whether Mundy’s death was intentional.
Lane agreed.
Another instance of intense argument outside the presence of jurors, this one more successful for prosecutors, was when the state called a deputy who was at the Robbins’ home the day before Mundy’s shooting, when events that led to the shooting were originally set in motion....
Finally, when it came to whether the jury would hear evidence that Daniel Robbins had previously pointed the gun he used to kill Mundy with at his own daughter, Lane said he would err on the side of caution, feeling an appellate issue could be raised if he allowed it.
“The only purpose in offering it is to show he’s not as peaceable as he implied to the jury?” Lane asked Jones. “That’s pretty weak. I mean, the impression he gave to the jury wasn’t that great. He didn’t use those words and say ‘hey, I’ve never done a violent act in my life; I’ve always been at peace.’ He didn’t say he’s never touched the weapon before or used it. It’s all kind of just a penumbra.”
Jones attempted one last time to sway the judge.
“Right, but judge, he was equivocal on more than one occasion that he uses the weapon to protect his family. I don’t think pointing it at your daughter who you believe is pregnant is protecting your family.”
The judge denied the effort, much to the defense’s relief.
But theses arguments were made outside the juries presence, so Ward is hoping that a juror or two will read the article and influence the jury to find Robbins guilty.  That can be the only explanation.  These arguments are not newsworthy, except to those who may be involved in the case, namely the jurors and maybe the judge.
Also, was Robbins the only defense witness called?  I cannot tell by the article. 
It's a shame that the Pahrump Valley Times employs an editor/writer who is trying to influence a criminal verdict by reporting non-newsworthy events about the trial, giving emotions to people involved in the case and by not reporting accurately on the trial.
Still, based on what I have heard and read, it seems like this verdict will be easy to reach- not guilty.  But if there is a conviction in the case, there will be several avenues of appeal, including the conduct of Matt "Jerry Sandusky" Ward and the Pahrump Valley Times.