The defense somehow managed to convince the jury that the DNA test on the at the time unborn child was flawed and was aquitted. I don't really understand how that was proven / why a new one couldn't be done etc etc
RynoHawk wrote:Even though what you stated is great, my point was more to the Holier-then-thou attitude that people have. It's pretty apparent that he was guilty- she is fricken prego with HIS baby. I think the main issue is that everything is subjective... Thanks for the reply
I havent read about the case but it seems like your leaving something out. If the case was as clear-cut as you make it seem I have a hard time believing he was let go
They settled in the civil case
It's not entirely that simple. Let me try and explain the facts, i don't necessarily agree the jury's interpretation.
Cox was accused of rape in a criminal matter. An investigation was conducted including which included a paternity test. The Defense could have sought to exclude the paternity test. If they did, they were unsuccessful. The paternity test was admitted into evidence. The defense doesn't want a new test because it would likely come back positive and show some form of sexual contact between Cox and the victim. The prosecution wouldn't want a new test because the results favored their case. Rather than move to exclude the evidence, the defense chose to convince the jury that the collection process was improper. The jury was still allowed to hear the evidence and still chose to acquit. Cox's own attorney admitted that his client was a liar (i believe in reference to sexual contact with the accuser), but the DNA, if reliable, could only prove sexual contact occurred. It couldn't prove a rape had occurred. It's not the job of the defense to explain all the facts of the case, only to show that the prosecution's allegations could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense was able to paint the accuser as sexually promiscuous based on testimony from Demaryous Thomas that the accuser had performed sexual acts with another woman willingly before leaving the apartment the same night. (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20097030
The Jury initially chose not to discuss the case. The foreman later changed his mind:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 2450,d.cGE
Again. By no means am i trying to justify the actions of Cox. I'm only trying to explain the rational for an acquittal.