A case is triable when there’s something they can tell the jury in furtherance of a not-guilty verdict. I’ve always found the term amusing because it makes clear that guilt or innocence is beside the point.

“Is my case triable?” I ask.

“The evidence they have is solid,” he says, looking me straight in the eye and now without any smile. “I’m not going to lie to you about that. I don’t know if it’s enough all by itself for a conviction, but it’s close. So, to answer your question, as far as I know right now, yes. You have a triable case. But that could change in a hurry. If the prosecution gets anything else—and I suspect they’re hard at work looking for it—it won’t be triable. And, as I’m sure you know, I don’t expect them to offer a plea.”

This I do know. Limiting the damage by accepting responsibility in exchange for receiving a reduced sentence—say pleading down to manslaughter in the first degree, which carries with it a penalty of ten to thirty years—thereby leaving some possibility, however remote, that I could be out in time to see Jacob graduate from high school, is not a possibility. Not for killing an ADA. A guilty plea now and a guilty verdict after trial are going to lead to the same result: twenty-five years to life, the maximum penalty for murder in the second degree in New York. I only avoid mandatory lifetime incarceration because murdered ADAs aren’t defined as “peace officers” under the statute. Kill a cop and you’re charged with murder in the first, but an ADA only merits a second-degree murder charge. Lucky me, I guess.

“The reason they made the arrest is because they cracked Lauren’s phone,” LeMarcus continues. “Gabriel Velasquez confirmed to me what’s in the press—that on the night Lauren was killed, you texted her asking to meet you in the park.”

I begin to reply, but LeMarcus puts up his hand, instructing me to stop. “I should have said this before we began because it’s part of my standard spiel. I thought you might have found it patronizing, but it’s important that you not tell me anything that I haven’t asked. I don’t want you to taint me with information that makes a particular defense outside the ethical boundaries. Understood?”

I nod that I do. He wants to leave open the possibility of presenting a defense that doesn’t conform with what actually happened. In other words, he is open to my committing perjury so long as he’s not guilty of suborning it.