How certain were we?

Not entirely certain at all. We knew that the case was weak, but we weren't entirely certain of a not guilty verdict. I personally had a lot of faith because a lot of Gursikhs (devout Sikhs) were certain of an acquittal, but even I had doubt at some level. No one but the judge knew anything until the judge declared the main witness "uncredible".

Basically, it came down to one deciding factor. If the judge proved to be brave and independent, we knew the verdict would be not guilty, if not, we suspected that the verdict would be guilty. Fortuntely, the judge did turn out to be brave and independent, and we're all grateful for that.

The risk with a judge-alone trial is the issue of judicial independence. It's much easier to influence a single person than it is to influence a number of people (i.e. a jury). Luckily, we're not the conzpirizoid type, and we didn't believe that the judge would be influenced in such a way. A jury on the other hand, would've been unlikely to grasp the complex legal arguments that dominated much of the case, and they might've reacted out of emotion and irrational thinking as well as the desire to bring "justice" when in this circumstance, there was no justice to bring at all.