Yesterday Richard Workman, 40, of Summersville, West Virginia, was acquitted on charges of first-degree sexual abuse and sexual abuse by a parent guardian or custodian after a jury trial. The jury deliberated less than an hour before returning the not guilty verdict.

Reportedly, there was no physical evidence corroborating the testimony of the alleged victim. The alleged victim, who testified, was ten years-old. Assistant prosecutor Kelly Hamon said during closing arguments the girl had no reason to lie or to make up a story about Workman. Hamon also said Workman had two years to work on his story and was unable to testify without the aid of a written time line.

These are the most frightening cases imaginable. These charges will put people in prison for the same amount of time as first or second degree murder. However, unlike murder cases, the State does not collect a large amount of evidence. Prosecutors often rely solely on the testimony of alleged victims. The problem is, that without corroborating evidence, how can that be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Prosecutors like to rely on the argument that the alleged victim “had no reason to lie or to make up a story” about the defendant. The fact is, that it has been documented time and time again that some children will lie and make things up. Does it matter why they are doing it? No, it only matters that they could be making it up and there is no corroborating evidence.

In these types of cases (in West Virginia), the defense can give a special instruction to the jury – called a “Perry Instruction” informing the jury that if they believe that the testimony of the alleged victim is uncorroborated, they should scrutinize that testimony with “care and caution.”

This case is very similar to a case that I tried earlier this month, after which my client was also found not guilty. People don’t realize that in order to be found “not guilty,” all 12 jurors have to unanimously return a verdict of “not guilty.” Needless to say, it can be very difficult to get 12 people to agree on anything. The goal of the defense attorney in these cases is to pound into the jurors’ heads the fact that the prosecution has the burden of proof to prove the defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is not always an easy job, because jurors want to listen to the alleged victim testify, and then listen to the defendant testify (which, by the way, the defendant almost always has to testify in these cases) and then compare the two. They tend to choose the one they most believe. Their duty, however, is to compare the alleged victim’s testimony and the state’s lack of evidence against the “reasonable doubt” standard – which in reality should be a difficult burden for the state.

However, for every acquittal, there are probably several others who are wrongfully convicted on evidence that was far less than a “reasonable doubt.”

Read the entire article from the Register-Herald here.

– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.