Unless there is physical evidence, or the guy pleads guilty, how in the world can a jury convict him?
I heard about one jury (from some attorneys at a priest’s trial who talked to jurists later) in which the foreman said as the jury convened, “Well, he’s a Catholic priest, now let’s prove he’s guilty.”
The trial proved that the priest was NOT guilty because he also worked at a Reform school and had records that proved he wasn’t there at the times when he was accused.
I see the alleged “victim” was 12 years-old at the time of the sexual assault, and she comes forward four years later?
Maybe she was a victim, but maybe she was convinced that something happened that never occurred. Would be interested in learning more about her past. Maybe she is trying to shift blame for circumstances in her life to this guy. Who knows.
Absent any more information and EVIDENCE; I’d be a “not guilty” vote.
You might ask the same question about the sandusky trial.