Case Highlight: False Allegations Threaten a Man’s Life. This transcript captures the closing argument in a high-stakes case where our client faced 8 life sentences based on fabricated claims of sexual assault and abduction. We highlighted indisputable facts: the complainant’s story was inconsistent, and the physical evidence directly contradicted her account. With the government’s case unraveling under scrutiny, the jury unanimously returned a not guilty verdict, ending an innocent man’s worst nightmare.

​

Good afternoon, everybody. Just before I begin the remarks, let me just start by taking a moment to thank you for serving on the jury. Just to give some sense of perspective, what we're doing right now doesn't exist in most of the rest of the world. So if you're one of the billions of people that live in countries like Russia, China, North Korea, India, many, many others, what we're doing right now doesn't exist. If the government wants to come after you, they want to claim that you did something, there's no meaningful opportunity for somebody to vet evidence in court, to challenge the evidence, ask questions, have their attorney make arguments. And so, in my opinion -- granted, this is what I do for a living, but it's something that's exceptional about our country. It makes it -- it's something special, so special we put it in the founding documents of the country. It's in the Constitution. It's in the Virginia Constitution, too. But as important as all those rights are and as sacred as they might be, they're just words on a piece of paper unless people like you from the community show up. That's what gives it real life. And it wouldn't have happened without you. You've given us three days of your life away from your families, your work, all your other obligations. I just wanted to let you know it is appreciated. I give you my genuine thanks. I'm sure the Commonwealth does as well. And, certainly, [the defendant] does.

​

[The defendant] has been waiting a very long time to get to this point. You've heard since the December incident. It's been more than nine months at this point. This is -- I'm not exaggerating. I'm not overstating it one bit. This is the most important day of this man's life. The stakes could not be higher right now. He's been waiting, wondering the past nine months every single day that he might be convicted of these absolutely heinous crimes that he didn't commit. When the government brings criminal charges, any criminal charge, let alone charges of this nature, they're, essentially, making you a promise -- because these kind of charges ruin lives. They're making you a promise that they have evidence that is so overwhelming, so consistent, so clear, so compelling that after you've heard all of it, you'll be in a state of near certainty that you know precisely what occurred. And we're at the stage now where they've presented whatever it is they have. All their evidence has come and gone and it has failed. It has failed completely. And I'm going to go through in detail why it has.

 

But let me just make a suggestion for where your focus has to be in the deliberation room. It has to be on facts, cold-hard facts. A story; that's not facts. Okay? When a person comes forward and makes an allegation, they deserve two things: To be listened to and to be taken seriously. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is entitled to being blindly believed. And, frankly, that's what's occurred at every step here because she has never been meaningfully challenged by anybody from the government. Law enforcement never asked any follow-up questions. [The SANE nurse] never asked any follow-up questions. The story has never been scrutinized in any way, shape or form. It's just she says it so it must be so. Let's prosecute this gentleman without asking a single logical follow-up question. I'm not asking for a Sherlock Holmes' level investigation. Why don't we start with very basics? They've done absolutely nothing. This is the thing about human beings. Human beings have agendas. Human beings have motives. They have biases. They tell half truths. They exaggerate. Sometimes they outright lie. Facts don't lie and that's why that's where the focus has to be. Let's look at the facts, match them up to the story and see whether they align. And when you put the facts -- when you put your focus properly where they should be on the facts, each and every single one of them not only don't support her story, it directly contradicts her story.

​

So let's talk about the actual facts in this case, in chronological order starting with October 17th. October 17th, the story is, well, the police arrive and she says, well, you know, I was just having a casual conversation with a male friend. I can't believe they still cling to this. Through the opening statement, the closing argument, through the presentation of the case, it's the platonic male friend that I just happened to be FaceTiming with and then my out-of-control, unhinged husband for no apparent reason burst into the room, slapped me so hard across the face it knocked me to the floor, stomped on me, kicked me, choked me. So what's fact Number 1? She lied from moment one, from the first moment she talks to the police. This ridiculous notion that I'm just having casual conversations with a friend. She's naked on FaceTime with a man she's engaged in an adulterous affair with. That's the truth. Now, the government, if they were to attempt to say, well, you know, it's just a small inconsistency. It's not that important. Maybe she's embarrassed. I beg to differ. What's important is the truth, the full truth. What does it demonstrate from moment one? This is somebody who is willing to manipulate, somebody who is willing to distort, somebody who is more than willing to weave a narrative, a narrative that casts her as a complete innocent and her husband as a violent, unhinged lunatic.

This is the thing about somebody who from moment one lied. Once somebody has told you one lie, you can't believe anything else that person says. We all know that from our day-to-day lives. You go to a mechanic, they put the car -- you need all your brakes replaced and you know you just had it done. Is that somebody you're going to trust going forward? No. This is one that attorneys toss out. You go to a fancy restaurant, a sit-down. They bring me my soup. The first chunk out of it is rancid meat. Waiter, what is this? Oh, well, I assure you that the rest of this soup is pristine. There's nothing to be concerned about here, sir. She lied from moment one and this entire case hinges on her credibility. It's the singular issue in this case, whether you find that she is credible beyond a reasonable doubt.

​

What is the second fact that we know from October 17th? The physical findings are completely inconsistent with her version of events. And I've got to tell you, I wasn't particularly impressed with [the officers]. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into owning that the only written report in the case that they prepared makes a very specific notation. We didn't see any marks on her neck. We didn't see anything consistent with being choked. We didn't see anything consistent with her being kicked. These gentlemen are supposed to be impartial witnesses. Just come in here and tell the truth. Just own what's in your report. What is this that you've got to be dragged, kicking and screaming into owning what you wrote out in your own hand on a piece of paper? The simple matter is the physical findings in this are completely wildly inconsistent with her story. They are irreconcilable. It could not have occurred in the manner that she describes. She describes an absolutely savage beating. There's not a mark on her neck that they finally owned, eventually. There's some very minor redness under her eye. That is true. That is a fact. Let's talk about that. What is a reasonable explanation for that finding? A husband enters a room where his wife is naked on FaceTime with another man. Predictably, that creates an argument. There's a struggle over the phone which is corroborated through [the male witness's] testimony. In the struggle over the phone, you get knocked in the eye which would create minor redness which is exactly what is reflected, minor redness. Look at the photographs. Wildly inconsistent with this notion of being choked out and stomped on and kicked in the ribs. It's ridiculous. He's a 240-pound man.

​

Fact Number 3. At the time that this occurred, he was less than a month removed from a major surgery. You got all the records. You'll take a look at them. Crashed his motorcycle September 13th in North Carolina. He had a surgery September 15th. The man had multiple fractured vertebrae, fractured ribs. Discharged September 19th. He hadn't even started his physical therapy yet. Coincidentally, it was that same day on the 17th. So this idea that he's in tiptop physical condition and just ragdolling this woman all around the room.

All right. Is it as powerful as the other two facts I just laid out? Maybe not. Maybe he's just that powerful. Even in an incapacitated state, he just throws people all over the room, stomping them, choking them somehow leaving no marks. It's certainly still a relevant fact for you to consider. This man was far from in peak form on October 17th.

​

I'd ask you to take into consideration what occurs after October 17th. You heard there's a protective order put in place. And what do you know? He followed it to the letter. Moved out of his own house, had absolutely no contact with [the complaining witness]. The reason I believe that has some level of significance is it directly contradicts the picture she has attempted to paint of this man which is he's out of control, he's a lunatic, he raped me twice in September, He savagely beat me in October, and then when the Court orders him not to have any contact, he abides by it 100 percent. Not a single issue. Zero contact with her. It's a demonstration that the man follows the rules. The man is law abiding. It doesn't make any sense. You'll see -- I think it's actually through the SANE report of all things, but the protective order got dismissed November 14th, and being a rule follower, that's when the man moves back into his home.

​

And then we go forward to this December 18th accusation. Now, at this point [the complaining witness] is in something of a bind. She doesn't have a place to live. You've heard that she doesn't have financial resources to pay a mortgage. She's engaged in an adulterous affair. She's heading towards a divorce where there's going to be contested issues of money, the house, custody, cars, et cetera. She has the audacity to get before you on the stand and say you know what fact. The fact that I was having an affair, that never even entered my mind that that could adversely affect me in the divorce proceedings. That is laughable. She goes over to the house that day. And let's consider her story step by step and then apply the facts to the story to see if they line up. Her version of events is that she's dropping off the two overnight bags for their daughters. They're going to spend the night with [the defendant]. [The defendant] invites her into the home. And she says I didn't think he'd be capable of anything. I didn't have any fear of him so, yes, I agreed to go into the home alone with [the defendant] to have a conversation. All right. Let's consider some context here and whether that makes any sense given the rest of her story. She said she was raped by him twice in September. She was savagely beat up, slapped across the face, thrown to the ground, stomped on, hit, choked out by him in October.

So does it make much sense given that history as she describes it, that she's dropping off two little girls to stay with him over night, one of whom is not even his biological daughter? She feels safe enough to enter the home alone with this man because, in her words, she had no reason to believe he could be capable of such a thing. What in the world is she talking about if you're to believe this prior history as she's recounted it? It makes absolutely zero sense.

​

From there she describes out of the blue after a cordial 20 to 30 minutes that he abducts her and commences, essentially, a two-and-a-half hour reign of terror which she agreed was, essentially, nonstop torture. She is choked, according to her story, at least ten times ten to 15 seconds each time, both with the forearm, with hands. She's punched repeatedly in the chest, jabbed repeatedly in the chest. Her chest pain is a ten out of ten. The intensity of the blows is a ten out of ten. She's punched in the stomach so many times that she collapses to the ground totally incapacitated. The force of the blows, ten out of ten. Let's compare it to the facts. Again, [the SANE nurse] for whatever reason didn't want to mention it on direct examination. I had to cross-examine her on it. No findings to her stomach. Not the tiniest bruise, mark, scratch, abrasion. Not even a microabrasion. Nothing. Not even a redness. Nothing on her chest. Nothing on her stomach despite a 240-pound man striking her over and over and over again. Her pain level a ten out of ten as she collapses totally incapacitated on the ground. It makes absolutely zero sense. It is impossible. It is not just some minor inconsistency. It is a glaring contradiction. It is absolutely impossible based on her version of events.

​

So the next aspect of her story is that at some point during this unrelenting attack where she's struggling and screaming with all of her might, she manages to escape out of the home out of a side door. Unfortunately, she's not able to escape because it's been pouring. The ground is saturated. There's mud everywhere. She's naked from the waist down wearing at least one sock, perhaps two, screaming at the top of her lungs. [The defendant] is able to run out, get her, drag her back into the house. Let's consider the facts. Stop talking stories, fantasies and start talking facts. There's no evidence of any drag marks in the mud. There's no evidence of muddy footprints. She is examined head to toe. She's wearing the exact same clothing that she wore during this alleged attack. There's not a speck of dirt on her, not a speck of mud, nothing. Not only that, the police and [the SANE nurse] agreed that her clothes were in pristine shape. Nothing. There's no muddy sock, no wet sock, no nothing. Let's talk about the interior of the home itself. The forensic tech who examined the house agreed the house was perfectly clean. There's not a spec of dirt, no mud. You can look at the photos of the side door in question. There's no mud. There's no splatter. There's no nothing. It couldn't have possibly have occurred in the manner in which she describes. It is literally impossible.

​

Let's talk about the SANE examinations and the DNA examinations. I'll start with [the defendant's] SANE examination. [The defendant] himself was examined. There wasn't a finding of any significance on his entire body. I would submit to you that certainly has relevance in your analysis because what has been described to you is, again, a relenting beating, two-and-a-half hours of struggle, flailing, punching, kicking, doing anything I can to possibly escape. There is not the barest iota of physical evidence consistent with defensive injuries on his body. Nothing, not even a little tiny scratch. Zero.

 

The SANE examination of [the complaining witness]. She has described being choked not once, not twice, not three times, at least ten times ten to 15 seconds each time. Maximum force, ten out of ten. It's in the report. Please, take a look at it. She rated her throat pain as a ten out of ten. It's one of these situations where it's almost the Commonwealth saying, you know, don't believe your lying eyes. Just take our word for it. Take a look at the photographs of her neck. I think it's Exhibit Number 38. Totally inconsistent with what she describes. You can use your common sense as human beings. There's barely anything discernible on her neck.

Even [the SANE nurse] acknowledged there's a three-quarter centimeter red mark. I couldn't possibly say when that was left, how old it might be. The mark on the back of the neck I don't think is trauma but who knows. And then there's -- she described it as a tan bruise. You can take a look at it for yourselves. She didn't measure it. It doesn't look like much in my view. You're the jury. You make your own judgment. But what I do say with a high degree of confidence is that her story and the photographs and documentation on her neck are wildly inconsistent with one another.

​

The genital findings. At the end of the day, both [the SANE nurse] and [the defense medical expert] agreed with one another. They both agreed there's two findings. The urethral finding is utterly meaningless. It could have been caused by anything, excessive wiping, whatever. It's a fairly ordinary thing. You shouldn't draw any conclusions from it. The cervical finding, what did they both agree? It absolutely could be from, A, consensual sex, B, having sex with [the male witness] which she acknowledged occurred within the prior 48 hours. Take a look at the report. She said that they had sex on that Saturday, didn't use a condom. He ejaculated inside her. Both agreed that sexual encounter 100 percent could cause this cervical finding, among other causes.

And I'm not really sure where the government was going with it, with this suggestion that [the defense medical expert] is some hired gun and she's not to be trusted when, ultimately, she's saying the same thing [the SANE nurse] said. I mean, in my view a little bit more straightforward and not weaving in the whole narrative and being an ally and friend rather than an impartial witness. But they arrived at the same conclusion, and that same conclusion is that there is zero physical evidence to her genital area consistent with a nonconsensual encounter. Zero. Not one iota.

​

Let's talk about the DNA evidence. There were swabs that were taken from her neck based on the reported multiple strangulations, swabs taken from her face based on the version of the story where she's licked on the face during the attack. They take fingernail scrapings from both hands based on the report that she struggled with all of her might. All of those items are analyzed. What did we hear from [the forensic scientist]? No DNA on the neck sample. No male DNA on the face sample. No male DNA on any of the fingernail scrapings. Nothing. Nothing consistent with her version of events. The only relevant DNA finding is there's at least two different male's DNA in her vagina. At least two, possibly more, but at least two, and that [the defendant] could not be eliminated as a contributor of one of those. What does that establish? Absolutely nothing beyond they had consensual sex. That is it. All right. I'm stating the obvious. There is no such thing as rape DNA. DNA is DNA. It proves that they had sex. Nothing more, nothing less.

​

Let's talk about what has occurred since December 18th. [The complaining witness] now has full control of the house, access to the car she likes, full custody of the children, managed to move her boyfriend into the house [the defendant] paid for. And I got to tell you, in my opinion, it takes some level of audacity. Those two are still romantically involved together. They have nine months to get their stories straight and to come in here. And what do we hear? Oh, you know, in October, yeah, we were just friends. Well, what? You're naked FaceTiming. Oh, well, we weren't actually boyfriend-girlfriend. You went to Kentucky together in September and stayed together overnight in a hotel alone. Well, you know, she wasn't my girlfriend. I didn't call her my girlfriend when I talked to the police on December 18th. Oh, oops. I got called on it. Yep, I guess I did call her my girlfriend. Oh, well, we weren't actually official. We weren't actually doing anything until January except there's definitive evidence you had sex December 18th. Just own it. You-all were having an affair. You're both married. You're both having an affair. Just say it. Just own it. But they can't do it. And I respectfully submit to you that has a powerful bearing on your credibility determination. This entire man's life is on the line based on some of the most ridiculous witnesses I've ever seen. They can't own even the most obvious facts.

​

All right. Now is probably a good time to talk about reasonable doubt and what reasonable doubt means. That's their burden, beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm sure probably most of you have heard the phrase. Maybe haven't given it any deep reflection because you're not in a position that you are in now.

You heard when the judge was reading the jury instructions -- if you didn't already know, you get all those back there so don't feel like you need to know them by heart or anything. It tells you a suspicion, no matter how strong, isn't enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A probability of guilt is not enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me put it to you another way that I think makes it a little bit more meaningful. It is the highest burden that exists in any courtroom in this country. You could go anywhere, federal court, state court, Alaska, California, Texas, any courtroom that you would step into in the entire United States of America, the government's burden before you today is the highest legal burden that exists in the American court system. It is the platinum standard.

​

We're not always here for criminal cases. There are cases that involve disputes about property, money, custody of children. The burden before you today is higher than what is required to take your property from you, your money from you, your own children from you, the most precious thing that any of us could have. And the reason that the burden in a criminal case is so extraordinarily high is because in this country we don't guess people into prison. In this country, we value freedom and liberty. Those are founding principles of this country.

We haven't always lived up to them, but those are the ideals that we strive towards in this country. And so it naturally flows when we're talking about the highest burden that exists in this country, that it demands the highest quality of evidence and the highest quality of investigation. And the question for all of you is has that been provided. And the very simple, very resounding and emphatic answer is absolutely not.

​

The forensic tech -- and I'm not blaming her. It sounds like -- didn't even look at the side of the house. We've got two officers standing up and completely contradict what they put in their own report. We've got a SANE nurse that, I'm sorry, but, quite frankly, could not have been more biased. She came in here as an ally and an advocate. And there's a place for that. It's noble to be an ally and an advocate but not when you're a medical expert in a criminal case. Your job is to be impartial, present the medical evidence. That's it.

 

I'm not going to try to drag this on too much longer. I think you know the points that I'm making. One of the ways that I've always visualized and conceptualized beyond a reasonable doubt from the beginning of me doing this was I imagine the government's case as a boat and it starts docked at the presumption of innocence. That's where any man starts, where he still is, and they've got to navigate that boat, sail it across a very large ocean, the highest legal burden that exists in the United States of America, beyond a reasonable doubt to get to the destination of guilty. And in order to reach that destination, their case, that boat had better be really, really strong. So thinking of it in those terms, what have they put forward to you? Well, she told us a story so we leave. Let's ask basic follow-up questions. Well, she completely lied to the officers about how the argument started on October 17th. So from very moment one, literally the first interaction, she's manipulating, she distorting. That's a pretty big hole in the boat when the entire case is based on credibility. We're taking on water. It's starting to go down. Well, let's take a look at the physical injury. She said she was choked out. Zero signs of choking. Not a single mark on her neck. Another big hole. The boat's already starting to go under. The man in question just had back surgery, or within the past month. Hasn't even begun physical therapy and he's described as ragdolling her, throwing her down, slapping her across the room, stomping on her, kicking her, et cetera. Maybe not as big of a hole but still a hole in the boat taking on even more water. He's completely compliant with a protective order despite being described as a complete unhinged maniac. Another hole in the boat. She enters the home on December 18th saying that he's previously raped her twice, beat on her in October, and she's dropping off their two young daughters to spend the night and willingly goes into the house alone. It makes absolutely no sense. A giant gash on the hole of this boat. It's already under water. We can keep going and going and going. No evidence of mud anywhere, not in the house, not on [the defendant], not on [the complaining witness]. No signs of struggle in the yard. Absolutely nothing. Another massive hole in the boat. We're already now at the bottom of the ocean. I don't even know if this thing made it out of port. What else do we have? The DNA evidence shows absolutely nothing other than there was consensual sex. The DNA evidence does absolutely nothing to corroborate her version. No DNA on the neck. No DNA on the face. Another hole in the boat.

​

The government's presentation was light on facts. I don't know that they really put anything in because they don't have any evidence, and they can't offer any explanations because you can't explain the unexplainable. It's really remarkable to me, this man, his life is on the line and they don't have one iota of factual evidence to support these stories. Their strategy is, essentially, believe her. I'm glad that we have had evolving societal standards. It is a wonderful thing that people should feel more comfortable coming forward with sexual assault allegations. I've got three daughters of my own. That's the kind of world I want to live in. But there's a flip side to that which is not every person is equally credible and no human being is deserving and entitled to blind belief. And, certainly, not when none of the facts support their narrative, not a single one.

​

All right. I promised to wrap up and I am going to. I think the reason sometimes I have a hard time is it's -- it's a big day. This is the biggest day in this man's entire life and this is the last time that I get to address you. I've been doing this long enough to know every single time I sit down, I think, oh, no, what if I forgot to say this, I forgot to mention that. To the extent I've missed significant evidence, I'm counting on you-all to pick up the slack for me. It's also painful because when I sit down, the prosecution gets to get back up and to speak and inevitably I want to jump up and I want to make counter arguments and I want to say you're mischaracterizing the evidence and I can't do that. I have to be professional. I have to sit down. I have to be stoic and that's what I'm going to do. All right. But what I want to tell you is just because they say it last doesn't make it so. They don't get the final word. I don't get the final word. You-all get the final word and that comes in the form of your verdict.

 

And very soon, momentarily you're going to be going back into the jury deliberation room. And you've heard that your verdict is required to be unanimous. Let me put that another way to you. Each and every single one of you individually holds the outcome of this case in your hands. Every single one of you can and, in fact, has an obligation to stand up and to say I will not be a party to this. I will not be a party to guessing a man into prison. I will not be party to sweeping all the inconvenient facts under the rug. I will not put on the blinders. I will not engage in blind belief. I will prioritize facts over blind belief in a story from a witness who could not possibly be more biased. All it took for this man to be in this position fighting for everything was his estranged wife lifting the finger of allegation and pointing at him with nothing to support it. That is utterly terrifying that any single one of us, that's all that separates us from his position.

​

Ladies and gentlemen, it's not the kind of case where anybody can walk out of this courthouse happy. There's been just too much damage done. But when you come out with a not guilty verdict, you can feel good. You can hold your head up high. You should feel proud because you will have accomplished several important things. First and foremost, you will have upheld the oath that you took when you raised your right hand and were sworn as jurors because not guilty is the only appropriate verdict on this evidence. There is not just reasonable doubt, there is reasonable doubt 15-fold on this case. There is doubt all over it.

Two, you will have proven that even in difficult circumstances with difficult cases a man in this country will get a fair trial. The presumption of innocence will be honored. The demand for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will be honored. Three, and most importantly, you can feel good and you can feel proud that for -- because you will have ended a man's nightmare. The only appropriate verdict in this case is not guilty. [The defendant] is not guilty. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your jury service.