The trial of Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants will likely be over next week, with the jury then left to deliberate as long as necessary. Padilla will call no witnesses of his own and apparently doesn't plan to testify on his own behalf. His co-defendants have called a number of witnesses.
This leaves the defense to argue in closing argument that the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is an easier task for Padilla than for most defendants, as the evidence against him is thin, and he benefits in part from being largely unmentioned in a trial that has revolved in both the prosecution and defense cases against the other people before the jury. By not testifying or offering evidence, he also avoids opening the door to additional evidence that could support a cas against him. But, not explaining yourself always carries risk. I'm not sure I'd be gutsy enough to take that approach.
Jury deliberations could be extended, given the length of the trial.