“Unfortunately, the State has a problem. They must offer tangible evidence for every statement they make. This is the law. The law isn’t based in supposition. The law has integrity. It is rooted in proof. But as you may have already figured out, the State’s evidence is weak. So, instead, they’re offering a fictitious story about a boy named Billy Quinn. A story based on conjecture, and fake psychology. But they want you to believe this made-up story and send my client to jail.”

The jury is listening. I find this encouraging.

“Successful stories are like successful lies. They diverge from the truth by a matter of degree. DA Anderson is a good storyteller. But that’s what he’s telling you—a story. A story that sounds like the truth and yet is not the truth. A story with many details, none relevant to the charges against my client. A story rooted in sham science and made-up psychology that sounds technical but proves nothing.”

DeFiore strolls over to the defense table and lays a hand on Billy’s shoulder.

“One example is the DA’s claim that my client watches porn. Watching porn is not a fetish. It is not deviant behavior. Porn did not influence Billy’s feelings toward women. Many men watch porn. Many women do too. However, we are not here to render judgment on people who watch porn, including Billy, because his private life is not on trial. As I said and will keep saying, the law is unprejudiced. The law doesn’t care about someone’s sexual preferences or proclivities. It doesn’t judge someone’s choices. And yet, it’s clear to me, and it should be clear to you, that the State plans to do just that. The DA will try to pathologize his habits, will contend these habits led to violence. This story, rife with misleading claims, prejudicial suppositions, and phony evidence, is designed to lead you to false conclusions. I may not be as good a storyteller as the DA. But I am a good truth-teller. My job is to deconstruct this fake story and recast it as truth. I will ensure that you learn the truth of what happened on March 24. I will ensure you hear facts that are supported by scientific evidence.”

I want to cheer.

“And so, on behalf of my client, we ask that you keep these three questions in mind as both sides present our cases. We ask that you listen to the witnesses and assess the scientific evidence. We ask that you understand the facts. Finally, we ask that when the State fails to deliver an unequivocal ‘yes’ to the three questions at the heart of this trial, you tell the truth and deliver a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Thank you.”

Judge McKay looks up. “Let’s take a break.”