Page 134 of Fifty-Fifty

‘We’ve learned that Sofia and Alexandra Avellino are rich enough to buy themselves good defense lawyers, that’s for sure.’

Dreyer’s face pulled his lips apart into something that would resemble a smile on a human face, but Kate had never seen Dreyer smile. On the prosecutor, the

smile was as fake as watching a jaw move on a ventriloquist’s dummy. Dreyer had chops as a prosecutor. Tactically sound, smart, ruthless and determined. But in that moment Kate saw what he lacked – humanity. There was no rapport with the jury. No relationship there at all. She guessed that Dreyer recognized this deficiency, or that it had been pointed out to him before, and he was desperately trying to work on it.

He’d tried to crack a joke, and almost cracked his own face.

Dreyer just looked creepy.

‘But those expensive defense attorneys cannot get in the way of the truth.

There is one truth, one fact, one absolute that no one in this courtroom has challenged, and it’s the key thing for your consideration – when Frank Avellino died, his daughters were in his mansion. His body was still warm by the time the paramedics got to him. One of the defendants killed him. Or both of them did.

But it had to be at least one of the defendants who sit before you today,’ he said, pointing first at Alexandra, and then Sofia.

‘Sofia Avellino has chosen not to testify in this case. Same with Alexandra.

That is their right. Their silence means you don’t get to hear them say they didn’t kill their father. Each of them deny it, through their counsel. But if you are denied the opportunity to hear from the defendants, then you must use your judgment and assess the evidence and testimony against them. And there’s plenty …’

He went though the testimony from the police and experts, in detail, and said the challenges to that evidence from the defense attorneys may be valid, but the jury may decide it was just courtroom tricks.

‘Members of the jury, I ask you to return the verdict of guilty for both of the defendants. If you think one deserves the benefit of the doubt, then give it to them. But at least one of these women is a killer. Maybe it’s Alexandra, who tried to buy a witness, and falsify her father’s journal? Maybe it’s Sofia, whose hair was found in a knife wound to her father’s chest? We, the People, invite you to consider that they both had motive and opportunity to murder their father, and that forensic evidence links both sisters to this horrific crime. Thank you.’

Eddie stood. He had half a dozen pages in his hand. A speech, written and ready to be delivered. Kate thought it would be something bold, something stirring about the presumption of innocence, and the foundation of our justice system and constitution. She thought Eddie would have begun working on this speech days ago, adding and editing it as the evidence mounted. And once complete, he would have practiced it in front of a mirror like she had. Honed it.

Polished every word so that the delivery was perfect and the message was loud

and clear.

The jury waited in silence. Eddie threw the pages on the defense table, scattering them.

‘I don’t need to read my speech. I don’t even need to talk to you about the evidence in this case. You’ve been paying attention carefully. I know this. So, I won’t waste your time. Do the right thing. Acquit Sofia Avellino.’

And with that he sat down.

If he had a mic, he would’ve dropped it.

‘Miss Brooks,’ said Judge Stone. ‘Do you have anything to say to this jury?’

Kate swallowed, looked at the speech she’d written, and turned the pages over, laid them face down on the desk. She rose to her feet, adjusted her blouse, and came around the defense table to stand in front of the jury.

‘My client …’ she said, and then froze.

My client killed her father, his friend Hal Cohen, a pharmacist, a cashier, probably Mike Modine, maybe her mother and stepmother too, along with Jesus

knows how many more.

How do you represent someone you know is guilty? How do you stand there and tell a jury that they’re innocent? Why did this have to happen in her very first trial? These questions rolled around her mind like bingo balls in a tombola.

‘Members of the jury, I had written my closing speech before this trial began.

That’s the way I was taught to do it. Before the trial started I had prepared my client’s defense. I knew the points I had to make, and I knew what the issues in the case would be. I wrote my speech with those points in mind. I wanted to remind you of those points. The unreliability of forensic evidence, the holes in the prosecutor’s case, the co-defendant’s motives for murder …’

She took another pause. Let the silence into the room. Two jurors sat up a little straighter, they were listening. They didn’t know where this was going.

Neither did Kate.

‘But I’m not going to do that. I think you already know your own minds. I think you already have a good grasp of the evidence. I would ask you to be fair, and impartial, and to return the verdict which my client deserves.’