Case Highlight: Innocent Men Facing Multiple Life Sentences Exonerated. This transcript captures the closing argument in a high-stakes criminal trial where two young men faced serious charges based solely on one accuser’s story. The defense emphasized the facts: glaring inconsistencies in testimony, a complete lack of physical evidence, and investigative shortcomings that undermined the prosecution’s case. Jurors were reminded that blind belief is no substitute for evidence. The jury returned a not guilty verdict, securing a hard-fought victory that preserved our client's freedom and reputation.

 

Thank you, Judge. Before I begin my remarks, I know [co-counsel] thanked you, and I thanked you during the jury selection process, but now you've been here for three full days. So I do want to take a moment to thank you again. In my opinion, trial by a jury is something sacred. It's really something unique, something exceptional. Living in the United States, sometimes we take some of the rights that we have for granted, but this truly is something exceptional, something that sets us apart from most of the rest of the world.

If you're a citizen of China or Russia and the government comes after you and claims that you did something, good luck in having an opportunity to have a fair day in court in front of other citizens. Good luck having any opportunity to fight back. So it is something special about our country, and it is something to be proud of it. It wouldn't happen without you good people who show up to serve your civic duty. From what I heard in the jury selection, you've been doing it all month. So I thank you for that.

​

I know that [the defendant] thanks you for that. He's been waiting a really long time for this day. You've heard this happened a little over two years ago. Two years he has had this guillotine hanging over his head, wondering every day in the back of his mind whether he's going to be convicted, go live in a prison cell, sleep on a cold, dirty mattress with murderers for something he didn't do. My colleague, Mr. Khalaf made reference to you in his opening that, when the government brings a criminal charge, they are really making you a promise. They are making you a promise that they have evidence that is so clean, so compelling, so consistent, so overwhelming that after you've heard it, it would only point in one direction that you would be a state of absolute certainty of what occurred. We are at the point in this case where their evidence has all come and gone, and it has completely failed to do that. It's failed for many reasons. I know [co-counsel] has addressed a number of them. I have an obligation to [the defendant], and so I'll go through those as well.

​

Before I even get into it, let me suggest to you where your focus should be. When you go back into that jury deliberation room, your focus has to be on facts. Cold, hard, irrefutable facts, as my colleague, Mr. Khalaf, had referenced. Obviously, I wasn't there that night. You weren't there that night. The prosecution wasn't there that night. None of us know [the complaining witness]. We can't mind-read. We can't divine. We can't use tarot cards. We need to look at the facts.This is a situation where these gentlemen are on trial for these heinous crimes based on one person pointing the finger of accusation. That's all it took for them to be charged and to be on trial fighting for their lives. This is the most important day of their entire lives right now. In that situation, blind faith is not evidence. None of us know her. The focus has to be on whether the facts corroborate her version of events. When you properly put the focus on the facts instead of mind reading, instead of blind belief on all the facts one by one, it does not only support her story, but it directly contradicts it. So let's discuss the facts just in chronological order.

​

[The complaining witness]  testified that this was the first time alcohol had ever touched my lips. Never had a sip of alcohol my entire life. This was literally the first time I had ever drank. What's the first fact that we get? She sent him a text two days prior saying, "Man, get me drunk." When she went over there, she's chugging the Crown Royal. She got so intoxicated her own friend had to take her keys away from her. Use your common sense. Use your logic. Does that make logical sense? Absolutely not. Her credibility is everything in this case.

Fact No. 2: She told you that she had no contact with [the defendant] whatsoever other than an unwanted kiss on the lips. Other than that, no contact, no consensual contact whatsoever. What do we have when [the defendant] is examined? Again, a clear hickey on his neck. You have a photograph of it -- two photographs of it that you can bring back into the jury room. You have the SANE report that describes it as a neck suction injury. That is swabbed, and her DNA is all over it. She's the major contributor to it. That is absolutely unexplainable on her story, and that's why they choose not to address it, because there is no explanation. It is completely incompatible with her story. It is completely unexplainable. It does not support her story. Even that standing alone would be reasonable doubt, but there is far more and far more disturbing lack of evidence.

​

The next set of facts is really a series of facts, which [the complaining witness's] own story is internally and completely inconsistent, and it's certainly completely inconsistent with [prosecution witness's] story. According to [the complaining witness] in her testimony, she said, yeah we came over there, and at some point we went upstairs. I got the unwanted kiss. I was uncomfortable, and I left. I tried to leave, and my friend came out and said I was too drunk, I shouldn't drive away, and she took my keys. She said that [the defendant] grabbed my arm, and I wasn't sure how I ended up getting back in the house. On cross-examination, she concedes that actually [the defendant] gave me a piggyback ride back into the house. So according to her own story, she's getting a piggyback ride back into the house from the guy she just fled from because she thinks he's going to assault her. That doesn't make any sense. It's also inconsistent with [prosecution witness's] story, which is the entire thing involving going out to the car occurring before any of us went upstairs. You heard [prosecution witness's] story, which is, Yeah, we all went upstairs together. I went into the room with the one guy, and then [the complaining witness] went into the room with [the defendant]. Then she came back downstairs. She was laughing. She was giggling. Everybody was having a good time. Completely contradictory to [the complaining witness's] story. It makes absolutely no sense. Completely unexplainable.

​

We've got [the complaining witness's] account very clearly that I opened the door, was attempting to communicate with [prosecution witness] and making eye contact. Maybe she's not understanding what I'm saying. And right in plain view, [the defendant] snatches me up and throws me into the other room right in plain view of my friend. Of course, [prosecution witness] says nothing like that ever happened. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense that somebody would be abducted directly in front of their friend, and nobody would make any attempt to intervene. The story is absolutely all over the place. It makes absolutely no sense. That's a fact.

​

The next fact -- all of these are important, but this one I would suggest to you is maybe the single most important fact in the entire case. [Co-counsel] touched on it. She describes an absolutely horrific, brutal attack. She's dragged into the room. Her clothes are ripped from her body against her will. She is pinned down. These are two young strong men gripping her arms as they take turns raping her for 10 to 15 minutes.

She is examined head to toe within 24 hours and doesn't have a single mark on her body, not even the smallest abrasion, smallest bruise anywhere on her entire body. She was examined from head to toe. That is unexplainable. They don't address it because they can't explain it. It does not make any sense whatsoever. It is completely consistent with her story. It is irreconcilably inconsistent with her story.

​

The next fact is there is no semen, no seminal fluid, no blood anywhere on her body. The feeble excuse that was offered was, well, she took a shower; so it washed away all of the evidence from her body. Of course, we've heard semen remains in the vagina and cervix for three to five days. They examined her cervix. They examined her vagina among many other areas of her body. There is no semen, no seminal fluid found anywhere. Completely unexplainable.

​

What else can't they explain? Fact: [prosecution witness] said, "The only thing I heard was what sounded like a person fell down. I figured it was because she was wasted and drunk." That's all I have heard. She called it a little commotion and nothing alarming. Contrast that with [the complaining witness's] story, which is I was screaming at the top of my lungs. I was struggling with all of my might, suffering this horrific assault for 10 to 15 minutes. It makes absolutely no sense. It is completely inconsistent. That again is a fact.

​

Let's consider [the complaining witness's] actions after she leaves. It's a fact that the first place that she goes is to her violent, gun-wielding ex-boyfriend's house, which I would suggest to you doesn't make a lot of sense unless -- and of course, we are not required to prove anything, but food for thought, this is all the same circle of friends. So it would stand to reason that this guy, [boyfriend], might find out that she's partying with [the defendant] in a room alone, and you better get out in front of it and offer some explanation. Of course, we heard [the complaining witness] didn't even call the police. This friend [prosecution witness] called the police, and according to her story, she hadn't even told [prosecution witness] what occurred. According to [the complaining witness], the first time she ever tells her story, she is directly in front of [boyfriend], this person who has threatened her with a gun previously. She testified she had to break up with him because he's violent. That's the first time she's telling the story, committing herself to a version of a story in front of [boyfriend].

​

Let's talk about how this investigation was conducted. This is a series of facts. The standard before you, the burden the government has in this case, is beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's talk about that momentarily. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden that exists in any courtroom in this country. You can go to Alaska, Texas. It doesn't matter where you go. The federal court, state court, the burden before you is the highest burden that exists in the legal system. It logically flows from that, that the highest burden that exists demands the highest quality of evidence and the highest quality of investigation. Ask yourself, is that what was done in this case? Is that what was provided to you? The answer is a very resounding no.

 

Let's talk about this investigation that ranged from nonexistent to completely incompetent. [Co-counsel] frankly is more forgiving than I am. The first officer who responded out, [police officer], I don't necessarily think he's a bad guy. Do I think he did a good job? Absolutely not. He responds out there, makes no attempt to separate her. We are not talking Sherlock Holmes level of investigation. This is not high-level stuff. This is very simple. When you take a statement from a witness, you separate them from one another. Why? So they won't be influenced by one another's presence or hearing what another is saying. It's exactly why we separate witnesses in a courtroom. This is very simple, very elementary-level investigation. It tainted things. It poisoned the well right from the beginning. You're getting the first official statement in front of this [boyfriend], the gun-toting ex-boyfriend.

​

What's the next part of the investigation? Again, they don't address this because there is no addressing it. On the body cam, [police officer] is told, hey, here's the bodysuit I was wearing. We haven't even laundered it yet. We were about to. Oh, okay, cool, I don't need that. Are you kidding me? You are not going to retrieve the clothing that the alleged victim of a sexual assault wore? You might see that it has tears. It's tattered. It's got DNA. It's got forensic evidence on it. I mean, it's mind-blowing.

​

Where does it go from there? It gets referred to a detective. They put the detective on the stand, and essentially his testimony was, hey, it's Norfolk. We've got a lot to do. I didn't have time to investigate any witnesses. I took a few photos. I didn't see any of these clothes that she supposedly left behind. I didn't try to get the sheets from the bed. I didn't get any evidence. Hey, what can you do? [Co-counsel] called him honorable. Again, I appreciate that he's a more forgiving human being than I am. I have a different word for it. I call it insulting. I call it insulting to the justice process. I call it insulting to these two men on trial. I call it insulting to you, the citizens of Norfolk, who rely on the police to protect you and to investigate crimes, and their excuse in this court with these men's lives on the line, hey, it's Norfolk. Too bad. We didn't have time. That's why I didn't interview anybody. Are you kidding me?

​

So let's circle back to beyond a reasonable doubt and what that requires. You heard in the jury instruction a probability of guilt is not enough. They'd got nowhere close to that, but even if they got there, that's not enough. A suspicion, no matter how strong, is not enough. Did they get there? No. Not even close.

Let me describe it in a way that makes it personally more meaningful to me. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it is again the highest burden that exists in the legal system in criminal cases. Sometimes there is disputes about money. There could be cases about custody of a child. The burden before you is higher than what is required to take your money from you, your livelihood from you. It's higher than the burden to take your own children from you, the most precious thing that most of us can have.

​

Why in this country do we make the burden so extraordinarily high? Because we don't take the idea of throwing innocent men in prison lightly. This is a country founded on notions of freedom and liberty. It hasn't always lived up to it, but those are the ideas of this country. That's why that burden is so extraordinarily high.

Another way that I sometimes personally visualize, conceptualize beyond a reasonable doubt -- stick with me through this one for a moment. It might sound a little bit cheesy, but from early on in my career, this is the picture I had in my head. At the beginning of the case, the case and evidence is like a boat that starts docked at the port of the presumption of innocence. The Commonwealth, the government, is required to navigate that boat across this vast ocean, the highest legal burden that exists in this country to get to the destination of  beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to get there, their boat -- their case and their evidence -- has to be extraordinarily strong. It has to be damn near watertight. You might be able to survive a few little imperfections that you can patch up with other evidence, but it has to be a very sturdy boat.

​

So let's think of it in those terms. Their boat -- their case and their evidence -- pulls out of port. Well, I never had anything to drink before. She sent a text two days prior, "Man, get me drunk." All right. A little hole in the boat. Maybe not that significant, but it's a hole. Starting to take on water. Starting to bail the water out.

Now, I've never had any contact with [the defendant] whatsoever. He just gave me a peck on the lips; otherwise, it was a violent gape rape. He's got a hickey on his neck, obviously not something he could fabricate. It's photographed, swabbed it, and it's covered in her DNA. There is no reasonable explanation for it. None. Zero. They can't even try to offer one. That's a bigger hole in the boat. Now we're taking on significant water. This boat is starting to sink already. The two people that were there, [complaining witness] and [prosecution witness], testified completely inconsistent with one another. In one story, she's getting yanked into the room in front of [prosecution witness], and the other version, no, that didn't happen at all. In one version she's getting a piggyback ride back in; the other version, well, I'm not sure. One version, she's coming downstairs giggling and laughing; the other version, no that never happened. They are all over the place. Another massive hole in the boat.

​

Let's get to the next thing, the cannonball-sized hole in this boat. No physical evidence. Zero. Not one iota consistent with this having occurred. Not the single, barest, tiniest abrasion even using special lighting equipment, magnification filters, she didn't have the tiniest bruise nowhere on her body. Completely impossible based on the version of her story. At this point, the boat is under water. It's sinking, but there is more. There's no semen. There's no seminal fluid anywhere, not on any of the tests. Completely unexplainable, and they can't even begin to try to explain it. Another cannon-sized -- now the boat is under water. It's just disintegrating into parts floating to the bottom of the ocean. They are asking you, based on this evidence, to convict these men.

​

I'm going to be wrapping up shortly as well, and it's always a very frustrating moment in the case when I have to sit back down because it's the last time as the defense we get to directly address you or comment on the evidence at all. That's excruciating when you're a defense attorney fighting for your client when the prosecution gets up and starts talking. Invariably, it always happens to me, I want to jump up and say you're mischaracterizing this, or you're ignoring this, but I can't do that. I've got to sit down. I've got to be stoic. I have to act professionally. That's what I'm going to do. What I do want to tell you is, just because they say it last, it doesn't make it so. They don't get the final word in this case. I don't get the final word in this case. You do. When you go back into that jury deliberation room momentarily, you heard that your verdict is required to be unanimous. So all of you have to be in agreement of what the appropriate verdict is.

​

Let me put that in a way that I believe makes it a little bit more meaningful, which is every single one of you individually is responsible for the outcome of this case. Every single one of you holds the outcome in your hands. Any single one of you can and in fact has the obligation to stand up and to say I will not sweep all of the inconvenient evidence under the rug. I will not put the blinders on. I will not blindly do the government's bidding. I will not believe a story on blind faith, that science and evidence are more important in a court of law than blindly believing a stranger. The only appropriate verdict on this evidence is not guilty. When you go back there to deliberate and you come back with a verdict of not guilty, you can feel good. You can feel proud. You should hold your head up high. By returning that verdict, you will have accomplished several things: (1) it is the only appropriate verdict on this evidence by returning that verdict. You will have done the job that you have sworn to do in this case. (2) you'll have proven that the right to a fair trial in this country is alive and well. You will have proven that the presumption of innocence in this country is alive and well. The demand for proof beyond a reasonable doubt is alive and well. When called upon, good people from the community will do their civic duty. They will hold the government accountable. They will not allow this series of excuses. These men are not guilty. The proper verdict is not guilty.Thank you for your time. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your attention.