For seven days, a jury in Jefferson County heard testimony from dozens of witnesses for the defense and prosecution for a double homicide trial. 

Steven Rebert was charged with the shooting deaths of Wayne and Vicky Shugar. Police found the couple shot to death in their home in April 2010. 

On Tuesday, closing arguments began in the trial that has become the talk of Jefferson County. 

After a short time, the jury found Rebert guilty of all charges. 

Closing arguments began with Rebert's defense attorney, John Ingros. 

Ingros told the jury he appreciated their time in this case. Ingros said that in his 17 years as an attorney, he cannot recall a case that has had so many exhibits. 

Ingros believes there were more than 350 exhibits presented during the trial. 

He told the jury, that they should not be able to prove that Rebert pulled the trigger five times killing the Shugar's. 

Ingros provided several examples to the jury as to why his client is not the man involved with the crime. 

During opening arguments Michelle Bright, a former friend of Rebert's and employer of Vicky Shugar's business, Flowers and More, was brought up. 

Ingros reminded the jury that Bright and Rebert had once been good friends. He said that the two did drugs like cocaine together. 

 Bright told the jury that she ended her friendship with Rebert in April 2009. Ingros said if Rebert's plan was to kill Bright's employer a year after their friendship ended, why would he use that as a way to get her back. 

Ingros also brought up March 3,2010. That day several neighbors testified to seeing a man along Coal Tipple Road who seemed out of place. After police ran the license plates on the car, it was found that the man on that road was Rebert. 

During the trial the prosecution reiterated to the jury that there was no reason for Rebert to be on that road. 

In an interview with police a few weeks after the murder, Rebert told police he was in the area doing contracting work for Zito Media. 

A former colleague of Rebert's testified saying otherwise, and that the work they did along Coal Tipple Road was back in February. 

Ingros recollected to the jury that Coal Tipple Road is one of those neighborhoods where everybody knows what is going on. 

Neighbors testified, saying that the man seemed to hide his face when they drove past him. 

When one neighbor approached Rebert that day, he said that "I'm just out here enjoying this nice day." 

A question the prosecution brought up several times in the trial was, "Why was he enjoying a nice day 44 miles away from his home in Brockway?" 

Ingros reminded the jury that several neighbors testified saying that Rebert appeared to be "scoping" out the land around the Shugar's home. 

Ingros said, if Rebert was a criminal, why would he be out in the broad daylight? 

In regards to why Rebert was on Coal Tipple Road, Ingros provided the jury with his reasoning. 

"You heard testimony from Michelle Bright saying Steven was a druggie," he added, she [Bright] told police that he grew marijuana. 

Arwen Strahl, another former friend, also testified saying the same thing. 

The jury also heard testimony from Rebert's former co-worker Justin Modeas. He also told the jury that Rebert grew marijuana. 

During Ingros' closing statements he addressed Rebert's possible interest in marijuana. He said that the jury heard testimony on the fact that he once grew marijuana. Ingros also reminded the jury that Trooper Dave Ray testified saying that they found photos of marijuana on Rebert's computer. Ray said that in those photos, it appeared to show the growth of the plant. 

With the discussion of marijuana, Ingros went on, saying that Rebert could have been on Coal Tipple Road on March 3 scouting an area to grow marijuana. 

However, the defense still had to prove why Rebert was seen in Brockway on the day of the murder. 

Ingros went on saying that testimony showed that Rebert was at the Sheetz in Brockway April 10. 

The video surveillance showed that Rebert was seen leaving Sheetz and driving toward Route 28 late that evening. 

While Ingros did not have an explanation as to where Rebert was going, and why he was driving toward the Shugar's he did attempt to refute the DNA evidence. 

According to our news partners at The Courier Express, serologist Micah Wilupia of the Erie crime lab tested a number of items submitted for evidence. 

Under further examination, The Courier Express reports that forensic scientist Timothy J. Gavel determined that the DNA profile of Wayne Shugar matched three blood samples found on Rebert's work boots. 

In opening arguments, District Attorney Jeffrey Burkett told the jury that the odds of anyone other than Wayne Shugar having the same DNA match within the Caucasian population is one in 3.1 quintillion. 

Ingros told the jury that since Rebert sold drugs, someone could have set him up. 

Ingros went on saying that, "if Rebert committed the crime, don't you think he would have gotten rid of the boots?" 

Ingros reminded the jury that there was a foreign spot of DNA on Wayne Shugar's pants and lab results determined it was not linked to Rebert. Ingros said that there also were fingerprints retrieved from the scene, but they did not match Rebert. 

Ending his closing arguments, Ingros said "it is impossible to tell Steven pulled the trigger," he then added "I will ask you to not find Rebert guilty of all charges. This is a person's life we are potentially talking about," said Ingros. 

Ingros would later learn that the jury would find Rebert guilty of all charges. 

Before the verdict District Attorney Jeffrey Burkett had the opportunity to talk to the jury one last time. 

Burkett took a substantial amount of time informing the jury of what they need to find Rebert guilty of. 

In the charge of first-degree murder, Burkett said that the murder must have been intentional. That means, "the killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait by any other kind of willful, desperate or premeditated killing," said Burkett. 

In the charge of second-degree, Burkett reminded the jury that they did not need to prove premeditation. 

In the charge of aggravated assault, someone "attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes serious injury," said Burkett. 

In the charge of burglary, someone "enters a building or occupied structure with the intent to commit a crime," said Burkett. 

In the charge of theft, Burkett said that this is the unlawful taking of property. 

In the charge of robbery, Burkett said this is done while in the course of committing a theft.

Burkett told the jury that he wanted them to find Rebert guilty of all of these charges. 

During closing arguments Burkett recollected for the jury why Rebert's actions on his computer should help them come up with a verdict. 

Burkett said that Rebert was searching for news of the murder before it even happened. 

During the first week of trial, the jury heard testimony from a computer expert that determined Rebert was searching on Yahoo.com for "Brockway + Pa." The expert went on, saying that typing this is pulled up local news headlines. 

Burkett also added that during the early morning hours of April 11, Rebert was seen searching for specific inquiries about coins. Burkett said that Rebert was searching for the monetary worth of nearly a dozen coins. 

Burkett reminded the jury that Wayne Shugar collected similar coins and dollar bills. 

Burkett also noted that he believed the defense had no evidence. He believed that Ingros only provided suggestions to the jury. 

During Burkett's portion of closing arguments he presented the jury with a Powerpoint presentation. 

"The man with the blood on his boots," was the first slide. 

This slide went on identifying that the DNA profile of Wayne Shugar was found on Rebert's boots. 

Burkett recollected the scene of the Shugar's home. He said that Rebert probably left the Shugar's home thinking he covered things up, but looking at the boots through further examination, that did not prove to be the case. 

"The man scoping out the crime scene," was another slide of Burkett. 

"Everything you expect a killer to do, he [Rebert] did it. 

When Burkett brought up the March 3 incident he reiterated to the jury that Rebert had no reason to be on Coal Tipple Road. When questioned by police, Rebert told them that he was doing work that day and waiting for Modeas. 

During testimony, the jury learned that Rebert never called Modeas that day and there were no cellphone records that he called him even days around March 3. 

"The man who misleads, deceives, and avoids questions," was another slide of Burkett's. 

Burkett went on saying that Rebert old police he was doing work on Coal Tipple Road for the last week of February and the first three weeks of March. 

Modeas said that they only did three weeks of work in Brockway. 

"The man in the video," was another slide. 

This slide Burkett reminded the jury that Rebert was seen at the Brockway Sheetz on the night of the murder. 

In response to the defense's statement about Rebert possibly growing marijuana near the Shugar's, Burkett questioned why a man would drive 44 miles to grow marijuana. Let alone, why he would check it at 8:15 p.m. 

"I give the defense an A for creativity but you never heard evidence involving marijuana," said Burkett. 

Once Burkett finished his closing arguments the jury was sent to their lunch break. 

Following the break, Judge John Foradora did the charge of the jury. 

One hour and 50 minutes into deliberations the jury announced a verdict. 

The jury of 12 men and women found Rebert guilty of all charges. 

Rebert is guilty of the following: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, aggravated assault, robbery, theft and burglary. 

Because the District Attorney is seeking the death penalty, on Thursday, the trial will go into the penalty phase. 

At this time Burkett said that they will call more witnesses to testify. 

Burkett said that this evidence should help the jury choose whether Rebert should be sentenced to life or death. 

The penalty phase will begin at 9 a.m. Thursday