Originally published on: Friday, March 23, 2018.

The judge in the Noor Salman case decided Friday that both charges — aiding and abetting, as well as obstruction of justice — will stand.

It was a disappointing moment for Salman's family.

“We do wish he’d thrown out some of the charges, but we understand he’s just doing his job," said family representative Susan Clary outside the courthouse.

Clary also said the family feels "she's been wrongly held the last year and a half in jail because of false evidence by the government."

Salman is the widow of Omar Mateen, the gunman who shot and killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in June 2016. She is accused of obstructing justice as well as aiding and abetting.

After federal prosecutors rested their case Thursday, the defense team for the widow of the Pulse nightclub gunman filed a motion saying the government had not proved its case and suggested the trial be dismissed.

Legal analyst David Haas, who is not a part of the trial, said it's customary in federal cases for the defense to file a motion for acquittal referred to as a Rule 29 motion. The motion is the defense's argument that the prosecution hasn't made its case and put forth sufficient evidence.

While Haas said they do get granted, they are rare.

Before a courtroom of attorneys, but devoid of jurors or even the defendant, Judge Paul Byron considered the motion Friday. 

Although the burden of proof lies with the government during trial; for this purpose, the judge had to accept "reasonable inference" in favor of the government.

In other words, the judge has to consider if a jury could reasonably accept the government's argument. 

Prosecution began by laying out specific ways it said Salman aided and abetted, from her text messages to Omar Mateen as a cover story, acts of casing and addition to a PNC bank account payable upon death, to being present for purchases of ammunition and lavish goods.

The defense countered, giving a spirited argument that her presence doesn't constitute help.

"I think that there's great hope now that the jury will see that the government doesn’t have a case against her." - Susan Clary, spokeswoman for the Salman family.

But Judge Byron upheld the charges, before leading a meticulous process of jury charges Friday afternoon.

Both sides went over instructions jury members would get before deliberation, word by word, differing over language, like “attempt” versus “provide.”

The jury was not present Friday, but Salman’s family and all attorneys were.

Outside the courthouse, Salman's family lamented what they said was a lack of evidence.

"I think that there's great hope now that the jury will see that the government doesn’t have a case against her," Clary said. 

On Thursday, it was revealed that the government knew Salman's statement to the FBI that she and Mateen cased Pulse prior to the attack couldn't be backed up with cell data outlining their movements. Yet, prosecution still allowed the information to be used in court.

This appeared to anger the judge, who based his decision to revoke Salman's bond upon the information, as well as several other factors.

As far as any violation of the Brady rule -- information favorable to the defendant in a criminal case that is known by the prosecution -- that has yet to be discussed in court.