COURTROOM AFTERNOON. We return to the court, this time Assistant 1 is on the stand, being cross examined by Holt.

HOLT: “Entire batches” you say? As in, all of the subjects you were trying to bring to completion?

ASSISTANT 1: yes.

HOLT: Even including many that seemed medically viable?

ASSISTANT 1: According to our tests and readings, yes.

HOLT: approximately how many batches were you and your team forced to terminate during your time in the second trimester unit?

ASSISTANT 1: (thinks for a moment) I think it was about five.

HOLT: And how many during your time working with the first trimester unit?

ASSISTANT 1: (a little nervous) um… I don't remember that; we terminated a lot more batches in the first one, because it was mostly easier to start over at that point.

HOLT: Can you give me a ballpark estimate?

ASSISTANT 1: Uh, like… more than 30 while I was working there.

HOLT: More than thirty you estimate?

ASSISTANT 1: Uh… yeah.

HOLT: And as far as you knew, everything Vita Kindergarten was doing was sanctioned as legal under the eyes of the law?

DUVALL: Objection, lacks foundation. Witness is not a legal expert.

HOLT: (Stepping on DUVALL’s words after hearing the word “witness”) I'm simply asking for the witness's understanding.

JUDGE LAURENS: Overruled, but only for the witness’s understanding.

ASSISTANT 1: (somewhat timid) a--as far as I know it was.

HOLT: Thank you; No further questions, your honor.

JUDGE LAURENS: (procedurally) The witness is excused. Prosecution, you may proceed with your next witness.

DUVALL: The People call Amira Lang, former Director of Records and Documentation at Vita Kindergarten.

(Amira Lang enters. She is trim, formal, early 30s, with visible signs of fatigue from years of moral compromise. She takes the stand.)

JUDGE LAURENS: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

LANG: I do.

DUVALL: Ms. Lang, could you please tell the court what your responsibilities were at Vita Kindergarten?

LANG: I managed all internal logs, documentation, and compliance language—basically everything that described how the facility recorded and categorized its work. I worked closely with legal, medical, and research departments.

DUVALL: So your job included overseeing how the subjects—the human entities being developed—were officially referred to?

LANG: Yes. That’s correct.

DUVALL: And did that terminology remain consistent during your time there?

LANG: (pauses) Not exactly, no.

DUVALL: Please elaborate.

LANG: Early on, our language was clinical. Subjects were referred to as “units,” “outputs,” “gestational assets,” or “G-types” followed by their week—like G12, G27, and so on.

DUVALL: And when did that start to change?

LANG: Roughly two months before the fire. Internal memos began to use terms like “prospective adoptees,” “viable dependents,” and eventually just... “children.”

HOLT: (rising) Objection—loaded phrasing. The use of “children” implies legal and moral personhood, which is precisely what is under debate in this trial.

DUVALL: (coolly) I’m simply asking what language the company itself chose to use.

JUDGE LAURENS: Overruled. The jury may consider the shift in language as part of the larger picture. Continue.

DUVALL: Ms. Lang, was this change in terminology mandated?

LANG: Not officially, at first. It started with the internal marketing team. Then Legal started revising boilerplate language for our adoption contracts. They stopped referring to the process as “post-gestational allocation” and started calling it “placement.”

DUVALL: Was there any specific reason for that change?

LANG: There was a very public adoption event scheduled for June 1st. The board wanted press coverage. Something about changing the public’s perception—making the company look more “humane,” more “family-oriented.” I think... it seemed they knew scrutiny was coming.

DUVALL: Scrutiny?

LANG: From regulators. From the public. From bioethicists. From their own employees.

(She doesn’t look at the defendant, but the silence is heavy.)

DUVALL: Was there any discussion internally about the legal implications of changing that language?

LANG: Yes. There was concern—quiet concern—that if we called them children, we might legally have to treat them like children. We were told to be “careful but heartfelt.” There was even a document—a tone guide—sent around. I still have a copy of it.

DUVALL: The People move to admit this internal memo as Exhibit C.

HOLT: Objection—no verification of authorship.

DUVALL: We have metadata from the company server and Lang’s access logs. It will be authenticated.

JUDGE LAURENS: Admitted. Jury will treat the document as authenticated pending final verification.

(DUVALL brings the memo to the judge and displays a copy on a projection or document camera. It reads:
“Tone Guide for External Messaging: When referring to post-term G-units, avoid technical language. Use words like ‘children,’ ‘sons,’ ‘daughters,’ or ‘future family members’ whenever possible. Our clients needs to feel connected.”)

DUVALL: Ms. Lang, did this guide reflect how you and your colleagues were asked to speak publicly?

LANG: Yes. Our external reports were rewritten. Press releases referred to the Vita Cradle system as a “next-generation womb” rather than a synthetic development chamber. We even rehearsed interviews.

DUVALL: Why do you think the company did this?

LANG: (long pause) Because they wanted the benefits of public sympathy—without the accountability that would come with acknowledging those “outputs” were people.

DUVALL: And when Ms. Lillian Cross burned the facility to the ground, which term did Vita Kindergarten realize was the right one?

LANG: (somewhat confused, not 100% sure she's answering correctly) … They… They called… them… children.

DUVALL: No further questions.

JUDGE LAURENS: Defense may cross.

(Holt rises slowly, restraining his usual vigor. His tone is cool, inquisitive.)

HOLT: Ms. Lang, you testified that this change in language occurred roughly two months before the fire. Correct?

LANG: Yes.

HOLT: And that this change reflected, in your words, a push for public sympathy?

LANG: That was a large part of the goal.

HOLT: So it was a PR move?

LANG: In part.

HOLT: But legally, did the status of the subjects change?

LANG: No. Not legally.

HOLT: Did the company file any amendment to their patents, or request a change in the classification of their research subjects with the Department of Health?

LANG: (reluctantly) Not that I know of.

HOLT: Thank you. No further questions.

JUDGE LAURENS: Witness is excused.

(Lang exits. The courtroom air feels heavier.)

JUDGE LAURENS: We will recess until tomorrow morning. The jury is reminded not to discuss the case or conduct any outside research.

(Gavel strikes. Lights dim)