The prosecution and the defense in the Jodi Arias sentencing retrial continued to accuse each other of allegedly deleting pornographic files from Travis Alexander's computer.

On Monday, defense lawyers filed a motion stating that either the prosecution or local police destroyed evidence that Alexander visited multiple porn websites by deleting files from his computer. According to the defense, the files would have helped to bolster their case that he was a sexual deviant who used Arias for sex. As a result, they asked the judge to dismiss all charges, or at least remove the death penalty as a sentencing option.

Defense lawyer Kirk Nurmi also claimed that a forensic computer expert found that pornographic images were removed from the computer during a three-hour period on June 19, 2009.

"There is a plethora of evidence being uncovered," Nurmi told the court, reports Reuters.

"Among the files that were deleted are several that are easily recognizable as pornographic websites," read the motion, according to CBS 5.

In response to the motion, prosecutors argued on Wednesday that such computers files never existed, and that if anything went missing from Alexander's computer, it was done by Arias' previous attorneys. They also stated that the computer in question was infected by a virus.

"If the history was altered, it was changed by defense counsel, not the state," Martinez wrote in his motion.

Mesa police officers have also testified in both Arias' original trial last year and her sentencing retrial that pornography was never found on the computer.

On Thursday, Arias' former attorney Maria Schaffer denied allegations directed at her, saying that when she and her team viewed Alexander's computer on June 19, 2009, it was in a room with Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Juan Martinez and Mesa police Det. Esteban Flores.

"It was physically impossible for us to delete files. We were never left in the room alone," said Schaffer, according to USA Today.

The judge denied the defense request to delay the trial based on the allegations and stated that a hearing on the motion would be held at a later date.