UPDATE WED 11:30 Jury finished listening to audio transcript of victim's testimony. 15 min recess, then deliberations will resume.
CHECK THE HATCITYBLOG TWITTER FEED FOR LIVE UPDATES
UPDATE 5:30 PM The jury requested to hear a playback of the alleged victim's testimony. Court ended without a verdict...deliberations will continue tomorrow morning.
Both McGowan, who is acting as his own attorney, and Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney David Shannon delivered their closing arguments Tuesday morning, and Judge James Ginocchio began instructing the jury on the law they must apply in deliberating a verdict.
The deliberations are expected to begin after the lunch recess.
McGowan claims the woman, with whom he was romantically involved, consented to anal sex with him, while Shannon, the prosecutor, painted a dramatically different picture, one of a man who used his superior size and strength to dominate and humiliate his alleged victim.
"Why would she lie? Why would she stick with this story and come in here three years later if it wasn't true?" Shannon said.
Shannon also said that even though the victim admitted the sex began consensually, it became rape when McGowan began sodomizing her and refused to stop when she objected.
But in his comments to the jury, McGowan said the victim, referred to throughout the week-long trial as "Jane Doe," went to authorities because she had "cheated on her partner of 25 years and got caught."
He said neither of the two doctors who examined the woman at New Milford Hospital could say conclusively whether marks on her body were the result of consensual intercourse or forced sex.
He also noted there were no injuries on his own body that would indicate the alleged victim tried to fight him off.
During his closing statement, McGowan told the jury he chose to represent himself because hiring a lawyer would be an admission he had something to hide.
UPDATE 2:10 PM:Jury has started deliberating on the case. Read the hatcityblog twitter feed for live updates!
After two years of following this case, John McGowan's fate is now in the hands of the jury. At this moment, the judge is giving final instructions to the jury with deliberations scheduled to start at 2 PM.
While the judge gives to jury their final instructions, I'm going to use this moment to transcribe my notes from the closing arguments and do a quick write-up on what happened so far today. In short, both sides made a compelling case (yes, believe it or not, McGowan didn't sound totally like an idiot). Personally, I don't see this as a open and shut case...in fact, it wouldn't be a far stretch to say that there isn't one juror that could have reasonable doubt. That being said, McGowan's chances at being found not guilty was severely damaged by the anti-immigrant activist representing himself.
I'll stay at the courthouse for as long as possible today. reporters for the News-Times, Waterbury Rep-Am, and Register-Citizen are also on hand so if a verdict is done today, you'll know about it in real time.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
UPDATE WED 11:30 Jury finished listening to audio transcript of victim's testimony. 15 min recess, then deliberations will resume.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
