|
Edited on Mon Jun-13-05 04:48 PM by Jack Rabbit
I served on a jury in California in a child molestation case several years ago. I was not surprised by this verdict.
That case, like this one, came down to simply whether or not the prosecution witnesses could be believed. The alleged victim was 12 at the time of the incident and 15 at the time of the trial. The young lady had a motivation to make up a story; she was late getting home for supper and her mother, an alcoholic, was known to beat her under such circumstances. On the other hand, the defendant was twice convicted of rape many years before. The alleged victim had no way of knowing that and, if she wasn't telling the truth, she couldn't have picked a better fall guy.
There were three counts. The improper touching of the young lady allegedly took place during a riotous game of grab ass with several other youngsters in a small house.
It took three years to bring the case to trial. During that time she altered her story so that what was initially one count was expanded to three. On one occasion, she told a doctor that nothing actually happened and the defense was able to secure the doctor's testimony to that effect.
We had no trouble finding the defendant not guilty on two counts. The third one, which formed the core of the young lady's story, was a stickier issue. We hung on that count with a majority favoring acquittal. I don't know whether the defendant was retried or not.
I voted not guilty on all three counts. For me, if I couldn't believe part of the young lady's story, I couldn't believe any of it, at least not enough to send a man to prison. During deliberations, one of the jurors conviction on the last count, asked me if I thought that maybe he was guilty. "Yes, I think that maybe he he did it," I said. "But the standard of proof here is beyond a reasonable doubt. 'Maybe' won't do it."
There might have been some discussion like that in these deliberations.
|