Race To The Bottom has posted its coverage of the morning session and the afternoon session
Update: We missed this, but three weeks ago, Professor Martin Katz of Sturm College of Law wrote an excellent overview for Race To The Bottom of what the two parties to Teh Trial must prove (or disprove) in order to prevail.
Excerpt:

There are two claims that will be tried: A wrongful termination claim under the 1^st Amendment and a wrongful investigation claim under the 1^st Amendment.

Wrongful termination. This is a fairly traditional claim. The claim is that Prof. Churchill was fired because of his speech (particularly, his post-9/11 essay). The University does not appear eager to fight a test case over whether state universities can control the speech of their professors. So it will likely rely on the factual argument that it did not fire Prof. Churchill because of his speech. This claim will be analyzed under the familiar framework in Mt. Healthy University Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).

[...]

Wrongful investigation. This claim is essentially a clever variation of the wrongful termination claim. Prof. Churchill could fight the wrongful termination claim by arguing that he would not have been fired but for the investigation and that he would not have been investigated but for his speech. But doing so would require him to take on the burden of proving two levels of but for causation – not an easy task. So instead, he has advanced a fairly novel claim: a wrongful investigation claim. This claim is essentially that the University decided to investigate him because of his speech.

Lane threw out an explosive allegation in response to the juror question, asking Carrigan if CU might have been in cahoots with the Rocky Mountain News to bring his client down.

He asked if it was unthinkable that CU law professor Paul Campos, who was a columnist with the now-defunct paper, might have acted as a go-between to tip the Rocky off to possible misconduct allegations floating around. After all, Lane said, Campos worked with CU Law School Dean David Getches -- the person who first received the core allegation from New Mexico law professor John LaVelle that Churchill had fabricated evidence.

"And you don't know how it is that the newspaper ended up in possession of the LaVelle allegations?" Lane asked Carrigan.

The regent said he didn't.

"Even if those allegations are planted by a faculty member who wrote a column for the Rocky Mountain News?" Lane queried. "That's all just a big coincidence?"

Carrigan said it was ridiculous to think that CU planted stories about academic misconduct in local papers to justify launching an investigation into Churchill's scholarship, particularly when the school had been the subject of so much negative coverage.

Update II: And, as if Lane weren't getting enough help from O'Rourke, the freakin' jury wades in to help Churchill's case:

Before the day ended, the jury upbraided Privilege & Tenure Committee member Don Morley for something he had said concerning Ward Churchill's practice of ghostwriting.

Earlier in the afternoon, the CU professor of communications testified that ghostwriting was an unacceptable academic practice because it didn't properly credit those who are doing the work.

The juror, through Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves, asked Morley why he hadn't yet informed the University of San Francisco, which employs professor Rebecca Robbins, that she had attached her name to an essay Churchill had written and claimed it as her own.

The juror wanted to know why Morley hadn't tried to correct the academic record as quickly as possible by letting Robbins' employer know what she had done.

Morley acknowledged that he had been inconsistent in that regard but assured the jury, somewhat sheepishly, he would do something about it within a month.

While a very good question, the answer to it should have no bearing upon the case—and it won't, since O'Rourke's already won the case for Churchill.

Without the controversy over the 9/11 essay, would Mr. Churchill have been fired over otherwise unrelated charges of academic sloppiness and dishonesty? Mr. Churchill and his lawyers say "no" and demand that he be reinstated. In the second sentence of its report, the university's investigative committee admits that there is no way to separate the original furor from the subsequent investigation, noting "its concern regarding the timing and, perhaps, the motives for the University's decision to initiate these charges at this time." Still, it asserts that Mr. Churchill's scholarly malfeasance was real and serious.

[...]

As the specifics of his academic fraud started to circulate in 2006, Mr. Churchill began to lose support among his colleagues. Fewer and fewer signatures appeared on each new petition circulated on his behalf. Mr. Churchill has periodically expressed surprise that his friends in the ivory tower sided against him. And perhaps he is right to wonder why they were suddenly so preoccupied with rigorous, bureaucratic adherence to university policy, after he had enjoyed so many years of promotions and awards in the ethnic-studies department without regard for the usual credentialing and publication requirements.