March 5, 1998 -- Astute observers of Louise Woodward's trial last year made sure to point out that though the British au pair was set free from jail, her legal troubles were far from over.

The next -- and possibly final -- chapter of her case will be opened Friday, when the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hear her appeal. The state's highest court decided to combine the appeal requests from both Woodward and Middlesex County district attorney Tom Reilly in a December 3 ruling by Justice Ruth Abrams.

The hearing this week will give both sides a chance to argue their cases, which focus on Judge Hiller Zobel's controversial decision last November to reduce the jury verdict against Woodward of second degree murder to a manslaughter charge.

Zobel's decision was permitted under rule 25(b)(2) of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows judges to reduce jury verdicts to a lesser offense, and he not only lowered the then 19-year old Woodward's conviction, but also reduced her sentence to time served, some 279 days.

Woodward had been charged with the death of Matthew Eappen, the baby son of Newton, Massachusetts residents Deborah and Sunil Eappen, who hired Woodward to look after baby Matthew and their other son, Brendan. She had originally received a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 15 years.

Prosecutors appealed the case, saying that Zobel's decision was unfair and a travesty of justice. "The court purported to be acting in the interests of justice," wrote prosecutor Gerard Leone in his appeal request, "yet it erroneously considered only the defendant and the evidence in the case, explicitly refusing to consider the victim's family."

Lawyers for Woodward argued that while the verdict allowed Woodward to go free from jail, it was still a conviction and they would not be satisfied until she was proven innocent. They laid out a wide range of arguments they hoped the court would consider, even suggesting that the jury was biased against defense lawyer Barry Scheck because he represented O.J. Simpson.

The justices have a number of options they can select from. They can:

• Uphold the verdict and Zobel's reduction of charges, in which case Woodward would likely be allowed to return home to her native Elton, England but would also retain her criminal record and have exhausted her legal options at the state level.

• Retain the original jury verdict, but throw out Zobel's reduction of charges and sentence. If they choose to reverse Zobel's use of the 25(b)(2) rule, the case could be handed back to a Superior Court judge to decide a new sentence, or they could re-sentence her themselves. They could also send the case back to a lower court for a new ruling on Zobel's post-verdict decision.

• Further reduce the sentence to a conviction of the lesser offense of assault and battery.

• Throw out the original verdict and the Zobel ruling and hand the case back to Superior Court for a new trial. They could also force the lower court to change the verdict to not guilty, or even throw out the indictment against Woodward.

Whatever the justices decide, it is almost certain they will not make any ruling on Friday. They have over four months to issue a written decision.

The firm that originally hired Woodward, EF Au Pair, recently announced they would no longer pay her legal bills. A legal defense fund that was set up for Woodward is currently covering her expenses.

On February 24, a memorial to Matthew Eappen was dedicated at the New England Medical Center, where Deborah Eappen -- an opthalmologist -- works.

It was also Woodward's 20th birthday.

-Jon Bonné