Legal expert: Naresh Bhatt is 'gambling' with bombshell confession

After the bombshell testimony from Naresh Bhatt, who is accused of killing his missing wife, what is left of his case?

On the stand Thursday, Naresh Bhatt told jurors that Mamta Kafle Bhatt died by suicide but confessed that he dismembered her body and attempted to hide it. He claimed he found Mamta Kafle Bhatt unconscious and surrounded by vomit, blood and an open insecticide packet at the foot of their bed on the night she went missing. He also admitted to using a saw to cut up her body.

READ ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY: Naresh Bhatt testifies he found his wife dead by suicide, dismembered her body

Mamta Kafle Bhatt, a young mother and nurse, vanished more than two years ago from her Manassas Park home. Three weeks after her disappearance, police arrested her husband, Naresh Bhatt. He's charged with first-degree murder, concealment of a dead body, and defiling a dead body.

On Friday, attorneys met with Judge Kimberly Irving to discuss how they plan to instruct the jury before deliberations begin, as we approach the end of the trial. The biggest revelation is that they will offer a waterfall instruction down to second-degree murder, but not to manslaughter.

WUSA9's Katie Lusso spoke to legal expert Frank Salvato about the case and what this means for Naresh Bhatt. Read the interview below:

Lusso: What are the main points of the jury instructions? What is actually happening there for those who don't quite understand this process right now? Cause it it seems like it was clear he was charged with first-degree murder, concealing a dead body, and defiling a dead body. But then today they're talking about all this other stuff. Can you explain that for the everyday person?

Salvato: Sure, jury instructions kind of set out the framework under which the jury has to apply the law in the case. A lot of the jury instructions are very basic, but when it comes down to the specifics of this offense, the judge gives elements that the Commonwealth must prove.

In this case, there's a waterfall situation.

Can you explain what that means?

Sure, a waterfall instruction typically means that you start at the highest defense, and then there's kind of a gradual decrease. So, for example, first-degree murder to second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter and, in some cases, involuntary manslaughter, so it's kind of a descending waterfall of the most serious to the least serious potential charges.

In this case, ... it looks like it is the Commonwealth's theory that it's a first-degree premeditated case. And essentially what the judge has said is, listen, if there's no malice, as that term is defined under Virginia law, then the jury can then find him guilty of second-degree murder.

When it comes to the jury deciding, they're trying to figure out whether or not this was premeditated, if this was murder and not suicide, but if they decide they don't believe this was premeditated, they could fall to second degree, is that correct?

Under the court's instructions now, if they decide that it's not premeditated and willful as the judge has defined under first degree. They can then find him guilty of second degree.

I don't see that in this case. I think it's an all-or-nothing situation. It's either gonna be an acquittal or the jury's gonna find him guilty of premeditated murder. I don't see it as a second-degree case. You never know what a jury will do.

He's already confessed to the concealing and the defilement. What happens with those charges?

Yeah, I think what he has conceded to and what the defense has conceded to is he's going to be found guilty of those. There's no doubt about that. They are gambling. That the jury finds him not guilty of the murder charges, whether it's first degree, second degree, or both. Again, this seems like an all-or-nothing case. The jury's either going to find him, in my opinion, guilty of first degree or acquit him completely. I don't see much room for maneuvering.

… I think what the defense is hoping is that the case goes back to the jury and they say, well, he admitted to A, B, and C involving what he did terribly to her remains, according to his version of what took place. Let's give the jury that opportunity to convict him of that, but if there's a reasonable doubt about whether he was responsible for her death. Then perhaps he can be acquitted of the greater charges, the murder charges.

So essentially they're hoping the jury comes back and says, listen, we're gonna convict him of this; he admitted to that, but there's a reasonable doubt on the actual murder charges.

Is this a smart move by the defense?

It's one strategy. One strategy in this case would be for him to have pled guilty to any of those related charges, but I think what he decided, with or in conjunction with his attorneys, is, let's send it to the jury. Maybe they come back on just these lesser charges that he admitted to, and then we gamble on the murder charges.

In your opinion, how do you get to a point where you decide this is the route to go? I mean, for two years, he has been sticking to one story. Why, five weeks into the trial, would you change the story and risk admitting that there is a body, that she is dead, she is no longer missing?

I think I mean, the writing was on the wall pretty clearly and kind of in bold capital letters with regard to the video surveillance and what he was unfortunately doing to her, to her body, so I think he saw it as an opportunity to say, listen, yes, I have to admit that the evidence is so strong against me, so perhaps I'm gonna alter what I've said before, which again can happen, can be truthful, but I think he saw it as an opportunity to admit to something that it was without a doubt that they couldn't prove, but at the same time leave open that possibility.

Then perhaps he gets acquitted of the murder charges.

It's up to the jury to decide the credibility of all this. The jury may decide, OK, that's credible; he lied for a period of time, but we believe him this time, or the jury's gonna say, listen, this last-minute switch to a different version just ruins his credibility, and therefore we find him guilty of the premeditated murder.

He said in court yesterday that he decided to admit this in jail. He also didn't clarify whether or not he had told anyone else. Is there a potential that his family could face legal consequences if they knew that he had defiled her body and concealed it?

That's tough. That's a tough situation insofar as any other person being charged. Generally speaking, knowledge of a crime is not good enough if you know somebody's involved in criminal activity. You have to be a participant. You have to enter into an agreement. You have to take a step that goes beyond your knowledge.

I wouldn't think that the family would be prosecuted, not knowing any of the other information that the police would have, but it seems like this is a narrow focus. The Commonwealth wants to get him guilty of first-degree murder.

How much longer do you think this could potentially go on? They're slated for seven weeks. Next week will mark week six. When is the earliest we could see it handed off to the jury or even a verdict?

I think it'll be handed off to the jury on Monday. His redirect, I would expect it not to be overly lengthy; probably has two short witnesses, whether they're factual or, in some regards, character, that type of thing. And I would think the Commonwealth, who's already presented a very strong case, would probably present a couple of witnesses to impeach his credibility.

That's gonna wrap it up, and then since the jury instructions have kind of already been dealt with, I think they go right to closings on Monday, and given the state of the evidence in this case, you may have a verdict Monday night.

You think all of that could happen Monday?

I think all of it will wrap up Monday, maybe Tuesday, depending upon how long the closing arguments will be. And I think given the evidence in this case, the jury may make a very quick determination. Yes, it's premeditated, or we have a doubt about whether it's premeditated or murder at all.

The other charges he's really conceded, so I think it will be a fairly brief deliberation based upon my review of everything.

Is there a plea deal that could still happen, or is it too late for that?

You know, we talked about this months ago. I thought any plea deal would be contingent upon him perhaps disclosing the location of her remains. Perhaps the police already had that information. And maybe that's why there was no plea deal, or he didn't want a plea deal.

They said that there were conversations about it, but there was never a formal offering of one. But with him confessing that he did dump her body parts, I mean, is there anything he has to offer at this point?

I don't think there's any possibility of a plea deal at this point. Perhaps months ago, if he had said what he said on the stand, perhaps it was a way to resolve the case short of what could be a life without parole situation. I don't think there's any chance of a last-second plea deal. There's always a slim possibility, but I would put that chance really next to zero considering where we're at in the case.

This Q&A has been edited for clarity.