ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- A jury could begin deliberations as soon as Thursday on whether a Virginia-based military contractor bears responsibility for the abuse of detainees 20 years ago at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

The civil trial underway in U.S. District Court in Alexandria is the second this year involving allegations against Reston-based CACI, which supplied civilian interrogators to Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004 to supplement U.S. military efforts after the invasion of Iraq.

The first trial earlier this year ended in a mistrial with a hung jury that could not agree on whether CACI was liable.

The prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib shocked the world's conscience two decades ago after photos became public showing naked, abused inmates forced into humiliating poses.

Military police who were seen in the photos smiling and laughing as they directed the abuse were convicted in military courts-martial. But none of the civilian interrogators from CACI ever faced criminal charges, even though military investigations concluded that several CACI interrogators had engaged in wrongdoing.

The current lawsuit, filed by three former Abu Ghraib detainees, alleges that CACI interrogators contributed to their mistreatment by conspiring with military police to "soften up" detainees for questioning by subjecting them to abuse that included beatings, sexual abuse, forced nudity and dog attacks.

The trial earlier this year was the first time a U.S. jury heard claims brought by Abu Ghraib survivors. It came after 15 years of legal wrangling and multiple appeals that saw the case thrown out, only to be revived on multiple occasions by a federal appeals court.

CACI maintains, as it has from the outset, that it did nothing wrong. It does not deny that some detainees were horribly mistreated, though it has sought to cast doubt on whether the three plaintiffs in this case have been truthful about the specific abuse they have claimed.

But CACI says its employees had nothing to do with the abuse. And they contend that any isolated misconduct by its employees is actually the responsibility of the Army, which CACI contends had complete supervision and control over the civilians it supplied to the war effort.

CACI sought again this week to have the case tossed out of court, arguing in its filings that the plaintiffs "have not presented evidence, nor maintain any claims that CACI personnel directly mistreated them. Instead, Plaintiffs seek to hold CACI vicariously liable for injuries inflicted by others."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said that CACI's contract with the Army, as well as the Army Field Manual, make clear that CACI is responsible for overseeing its own workers.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, though, has allowed the case to go forward. Closing arguments are expected on Thursday.