When We Were Bright and Beautiful(72)

“This, unfortunately, is where our agreement ends, and disagreements begin. The State wants you to believe Billy Quinn and Diana Holly dated only briefly. However, we will introduce Deacon Porter, Billy’s best friend, who will testify that he joined the couple on dates from June through December. Similarly, both sides disagree on what happened during their relationship and who eventually broke it off. We disagree on what happened in the aftermath of that breakup. We disagree on the reason Diana invited Billy to the party. We disagree on what happened at that party. We disagree on whether or not the sex was consensual.”

Hearing this, I sit more comfortably. Nate and my parents do too. DeFiore is competent, holding his own. Thank fucking God.

“While each of these points makes for compelling discussion, this case is not about what we agree on and what we don’t. So, I’ll ask again: What is this case about? Why are you here? What are you being asked to decide?”

Looking at the jury, DeFiore makes eye contact with each member, one by one.

“This case lies in the answer to three questions. One, did Billy Quinn believe that Diana Holly wanted to have sex on March 24? Two, did Diana lose consciousness on March 24; and, if so, was this before she and Billy engaged in sex? Three, if Diana was unresponsive before they engaged in sex, did Billy know it? That’s it—three questions.

“During this trial, you will hear witness testimony about the charges against my client. Each charge relates to these questions. To be perfectly frank, as Mr. Anderson and I present our cases, much of the issues we discuss will have nothing to do with the charges against my client, or the three questions you must answer. Regardless, you’ll be expected to listen, remain objective, consider the evidence you have seen and heard, and reach a verdict. Most important, you must reach your verdict with the absence of doubt. This means the State must prove that the answer to these three questions is yes. An unequivocal yes.”

“He’s good, right?” I whisper to Nate.

“Yeah, he’s great. So shut up.”

“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.”

I feel good about DeFiore’s statement. Though it was shorter than Anderson’s and less dramatic, it was unpretentious and credible. His job is to pull apart Diana’s accusations and show an alternative argument. We don’t have to prove anything; we only have to provide reasonable doubt.

We spend the rest of the afternoon listening to the State’s first witness, a woman who worked in the lab with Diana and Billy. Her wire-frame glasses and no-nonsense haircut make it easy to picture her in a white coat. Anderson leads her through a series of science-related questions that have no point, but luckily, McKay calls him out. “I trust you’re going somewhere.” As it turns out, Anderson goes nowhere, and court is dismissed.

We leave the building in high spirits. Day three is over, and still no sign of Greg Haggerty. Good news, I tell myself, clutching at anything.