He looks down at a sheet of paper in front of him. That means he decided how he was going to rule last night and has already written out his decision, which he’s about to read into the record. This morning’s argument—and indeed last night’s research session—was largely just to put us through our paces.

Of course, I have no idea whether Judge Gold’s epiphany last night was for or against me. I say a silent prayer and wait—like everyone else in the courtroom.

“This is indeed an interesting issue,” Judge Gold says, “and one that has been well argued by both sides. As technology advances, the rules of evidence have to advance as well, or else they will become obsolete. I will issue a more detailed ruling on this issue because I think it is of scholarly interest and can be considered by others in different contexts from this one. But I realize that it is primarily of interest to the parties before me, and that my ruling will have important implications for this trial. Indeed, the text message at issue here is the lynchpin of the prosecution’s case. So much so that excluding it from evidence could well result in a directed verdict, and double jeopardy having already attached, the prosecution would have no right to appeal my ruling. By contrast, admitting the text message will preserve this issue for the appellate courts to consider. Of course, that only occurs in the event of a guilty verdict, but if Ms. Goodwin is acquitted even with the admission of this text message, then ruling it admissible obviously had no prejudice to the defense. And so my ruling might be considered either Solomonic or cowardly, depending on your point of view. I will accept the text into evidence, and thereby preserve this issue for appellate review. I do so because I agree with the prosecution that the evidence that Ms. Goodwin did not send the text is uncorroborated, and therefore the authenticity has been sufficiently established to accept the text into evidence. I will, however, give the defense latitude to maintain its argument that someone other than the defendant could have authored those texts, and the jury is free to acquit on that basis.”

Burrows jumps to his feet. “Your Honor—”

“Mr. Burrows, sit down. I’ve ruled. If you have anything to say about it, you’re going to need to tell it to the appellate court.”

50. DANA GOODWIN

50.

DANA GOODWIN

I try not to show it, but the last vestige of hope leaves my body with Judge Gold’s ruling.

LeMarcus sits beside me wearing a similar poker face, but he too slumps slightly in defeat.