District Attorney Lawrence Friedman wasn't immediately available earlier today following the acquittal of Ronald Smith on three counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. Geoff Redick and I waited until he was available and asked him about the verdict. Rather than weave his answers into our previous post on the not-guilty verdict, here is what he had to say:
On his initial reaction:
"To state the obvious, we were disappointed. We pursued this case because we believed the defendant committed these crimes, so it’s always a disappointment."
On whether mistakes were made in the prosecution:
"I‘m not second-guessing anything about how the case was tried. I think it went well, but as I said earlier, that is our jury system, where we have to have a unanimous verdict of 12 people convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that’s the best answer. We do have a heavy burden and obviously the jury felt that was not met."
On what the jury said after the verdict:
"Quite frankly, as you know, we do talk to jurors afterwards, but I guess I don’t want future jurors to be stifled thinking that we’re going to be making things public (that) they say to us.
"It’s not that there’s anything about this case that I’m holding back on, it’s just that we like to respect their privacy."
On the difficulty of proving intent for sexual gratification:
"I always think it’s interesting that the more serious sex offenses like first-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act -- crimes involving forceable compulsion, much more serious crimes -- those don’t have that element of sexual gratification. It’s really understandable why they don’t.
Really, these are crimes of violence, not necessarily being committed for sexual gratification. So to me it just always seems unusual that when you get to a lower-level offense such as sexual abuse, you’ve got that added element that we don’t have in more serious crimes. And yes it can be very difficult to prove the purpose of the act was to satisfy sexual gratification.
"Actually, in this case, I thought we were better off than most because of statements the defendant made, which were in the video, that I think reflected what he termed an accidental touching of the victim."
On the fact the jurors didn't know Smith is a Level 3 sex offender:
That’s the very reason they can’t know. In a case like this, it could effect the verdict, even with a warning from the court. That’s why they are not allowed to know, because obviously the idea is they shouldn’t be basing their verdict on what somebody has done in the past, they should be basing it on the evidence that’s presented in this trial. Granted, it adds to our frustration when we know the person’s history and the jury doesn’t."
