Conclusion of a rape trial in Cincinnati: Closing arguments. Verdict. Next steps.
The accused nodded at me today and asked how I was doing. I asked him, too — He said that he did what he could and there were things he couldn’t say (due to objections sustained). But we were interrupted by a police officer, unlike other days, who said that I must not speak in the courtroom.
After it was all over, I spoke with the prosecutor. She said that she finds the closing the most difficult part. She meant her statement, I think, though she seemed a bit nervous or hesitant in her rebuttal (below). She wondered whether this was the first time I ever sat through a whole trial (yes) and so she asked me for my impressions, compared to what I expected to see. I mentioned the intimacy of the courtroom, the familiarity among the professionals, the level of activity that the jury doesn’t see (which she said is much greater in other cases), and I appreciated the way she spoke respectfully, almost pedagogically, with the accused in his role as defense (e.g., as they reviewed the exhibits to provide the jury).
She told me that the defendant had a competency exam to ascertain that he was fit to stand trial. (She responded to my question about his mental health and ability to reason, prompted by my FB exchange with Gil. To be sure, such competency does not rule out various mental illnesses.)
For the conclusion of the trial, due to a scheduling conflict, I missed the beginning of the prosecutor’s closing statement. She was reviewing the charges and evidence in detail. Argued that the testimony was credible, consistent, and collaborated (be each pair). The tone was mostly factual, though she did underscore the girls’ ages at the time of their reports, and she also quoted from a couple of the more memorable and passionate lines of testimony. She also said the girls submitted “to essentially be his “sex slave,” an evocative term that I hadn’t heard until today.
The defendant again represented himself. From what I could tell, he gave more than a dozen reasons to be acquitted. These include: (1) the one medical exam did not show evidence of physical or sexual assault; (2) the parents were never subpoenaed, (3) the children are not credible and changed their statements during the case [this point repeated in different ways]; (4) the younger sister [4 yrs old] says she never saw, when she was alleged in the room; (5) the older sister [7 y.o.] later statement almost exactly matched the statement of the other girl [9 y.o.]; (6) he would not have kicked., etc., his own daughter and not the other girl, (7) the girls’ mother was never a weak woman and would not let that happen; (8) one boy’s mother admitted that he never hit her children and asked him to babysit; (9) she tried to get a man to lie to the police as if the accused would ever say such a self-incriminating statement; (10) the boys testimonies did not match; (*) a detective was removed from the case… [the prosecutor objected and this point was struck], (11) the boys’ mothers didn’t do anything about the allegations for a several months, one mother claiming she was too busy — but acted the day after he was back in jail — showing that they are not credible; (12) if adults changed their statements like the children had, they’d be guilty of perjury. He took 30+ minutes.
The prosecutor told me afterwards that she wanted to respond to several points because it’s hard to know what might make sense to a jury. Her rebuttal addressed (1) the lack of medical evidence, due to time frame, and why a medical exam does not show a physical effect of rape, taking into account also some details of the alleged actions; (2) why the boys’ statements did not match, due to the discomfort of one with testifying; (3) reasons for the delay in reporting and prosecution; and (4) the violence experienced by the mothers.
The judge gave a long charge to the jury, about 45 minutes. Mostly tedious details of charges and guilty/not-guilty forms. A few jurors were getting pretty sleepy and I can’t blame them.
But she also impressed upon them the importance of starting with an open mind — Don’t state your opinion on the verdict right away, lest you get stubborn about it. Focus on evidence, not sympathy or prejudice. Don’t be swayed by the accused representing himself. She also defined many terms, such as “reasonable” (as opposed to possible or imagined) doubt, purpose (motive not required), etc.
The verdict. The jury found him guilty on all 16 counts = 4 gross sexual imposition, 12 rape of a minor.
The jury deliberated for less than 2-1/2 hours.
The prosecutor was kind enough to text me when the jury had a verdict (3:32 pm). I was upstairs in the courthouse law library.
The convicted man sat quietly while the judge read the decision on all 16 counts and then asked each juror to confirm.
The judge asked whether the prosecutor or defense had any questions of the jury. He started to ask some question (maybe about why they did it) but she cut him off. I gather it wasn’t the acceptable type of question.
The jury was thanked and left. These were people who showed very little affect, during the trial or now at the end.
The judge then asked whether he wanted to a lawyer with the sentencing phase, or did he want to continue to represent himself. He paused and mumbled something. But then he apparently said yes.
The public defender stood up. (He’s an older man who had been friendly to me all week; sat in back because he was on standby.) He said that he would agree to represent the defendant, but I think he said that there might not be much he could do, since 12 counts carried sentences of life without parole. They agreed on a date in early July for sentencing.
Gradually, the courtroom was cleared. On her way out, the judge complimented the prosecutor on a good job. The bailiff also told the prosecutor that the jury had said she did a great job. “Call that a wrap,” someone said.
“All that before 4:00 p.m.,” somebody said, laughing — because the jurors wanted to get their cars out of the parking lot by 4 pm.
Original post: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161779084100335
The accused nodded at me today and asked how I was doing. I asked him, too — He said that he did what he could and there were things he couldn’t say (due to objections sustained). But we were interrupted by a police officer, unlike other days, who said that I must not speak in the courtroom.
After it was all over, I spoke with the prosecutor. She said that she finds the closing the most difficult part. She meant her statement, I think, though she seemed a bit nervous or hesitant in her rebuttal (below). She wondered whether this was the first time I ever sat through a whole trial (yes) and so she asked me for my impressions, compared to what I expected to see. I mentioned the intimacy of the courtroom, the familiarity among the professionals, the level of activity that the jury doesn’t see (which she said is much greater in other cases), and I appreciated the way she spoke respectfully, almost pedagogically, with the accused in his role as defense (e.g., as they reviewed the exhibits to provide the jury).
She told me that the defendant had a competency exam to ascertain that he was fit to stand trial. (She responded to my question about his mental health and ability to reason, prompted by my FB exchange with Gil. To be sure, such competency does not rule out various mental illnesses.)
For the conclusion of the trial, due to a scheduling conflict, I missed the beginning of the prosecutor’s closing statement. She was reviewing the charges and evidence in detail. Argued that the testimony was credible, consistent, and collaborated (be each pair). The tone was mostly factual, though she did underscore the girls’ ages at the time of their reports, and she also quoted from a couple of the more memorable and passionate lines of testimony. She also said the girls submitted “to essentially be his “sex slave,” an evocative term that I hadn’t heard until today.
The defendant again represented himself. From what I could tell, he gave more than a dozen reasons to be acquitted. These include: (1) the one medical exam did not show evidence of physical or sexual assault; (2) the parents were never subpoenaed, (3) the children are not credible and changed their statements during the case [this point repeated in different ways]; (4) the younger sister [4 yrs old] says she never saw, when she was alleged in the room; (5) the older sister [7 y.o.] later statement almost exactly matched the statement of the other girl [9 y.o.]; (6) he would not have kicked., etc., his own daughter and not the other girl, (7) the girls’ mother was never a weak woman and would not let that happen; (8) one boy’s mother admitted that he never hit her children and asked him to babysit; (9) she tried to get a man to lie to the police as if the accused would ever say such a self-incriminating statement; (10) the boys testimonies did not match; (*) a detective was removed from the case… [the prosecutor objected and this point was struck], (11) the boys’ mothers didn’t do anything about the allegations for a several months, one mother claiming she was too busy — but acted the day after he was back in jail — showing that they are not credible; (12) if adults changed their statements like the children had, they’d be guilty of perjury. He took 30+ minutes.
The prosecutor told me afterwards that she wanted to respond to several points because it’s hard to know what might make sense to a jury. Her rebuttal addressed (1) the lack of medical evidence, due to time frame, and why a medical exam does not show a physical effect of rape, taking into account also some details of the alleged actions; (2) why the boys’ statements did not match, due to the discomfort of one with testifying; (3) reasons for the delay in reporting and prosecution; and (4) the violence experienced by the mothers.
The judge gave a long charge to the jury, about 45 minutes. Mostly tedious details of charges and guilty/not-guilty forms. A few jurors were getting pretty sleepy and I can’t blame them.
But she also impressed upon them the importance of starting with an open mind — Don’t state your opinion on the verdict right away, lest you get stubborn about it. Focus on evidence, not sympathy or prejudice. Don’t be swayed by the accused representing himself. She also defined many terms, such as “reasonable” (as opposed to possible or imagined) doubt, purpose (motive not required), etc.
The verdict. The jury found him guilty on all 16 counts = 4 gross sexual imposition, 12 rape of a minor.
The jury deliberated for less than 2-1/2 hours.
The prosecutor was kind enough to text me when the jury had a verdict (3:32 pm). I was upstairs in the courthouse law library.
The convicted man sat quietly while the judge read the decision on all 16 counts and then asked each juror to confirm.
The judge asked whether the prosecutor or defense had any questions of the jury. He started to ask some question (maybe about why they did it) but she cut him off. I gather it wasn’t the acceptable type of question.
The jury was thanked and left. These were people who showed very little affect, during the trial or now at the end.
The judge then asked whether he wanted to a lawyer with the sentencing phase, or did he want to continue to represent himself. He paused and mumbled something. But then he apparently said yes.
The public defender stood up. (He’s an older man who had been friendly to me all week; sat in back because he was on standby.) He said that he would agree to represent the defendant, but I think he said that there might not be much he could do, since 12 counts carried sentences of life without parole. They agreed on a date in early July for sentencing.
Gradually, the courtroom was cleared. On her way out, the judge complimented the prosecutor on a good job. The bailiff also told the prosecutor that the jury had said she did a great job. “Call that a wrap,” someone said.
“All that before 4:00 p.m.,” somebody said, laughing — because the jurors wanted to get their cars out of the parking lot by 4 pm.
Original post: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161779084100335
Comments
Post a Comment