By Anna Olsen, Lamiya Gulamhusein, and Ankita Joshi
ALAMEDA, CA – In an ongoing trial, the transcript from an interview that took place with the alleged victim of a sex crime was read in a Monday morning jury trial here in Alameda County Superior Court—later, the defense called the alleged victim’s testimony “ludicrous.”
Robert “Doe” was charged with committing multiple felony sex crimes involving minors from 2017 through 2020. He entered a plea of not guilty.
*NOTE: To protect the identity of the victim the suspect’s true name is redacted, and “Doe” is being used.
The victim claimed she had been inappropriately touched by “Doe” on nine or 10 separate occasions when she was around the age of six.
“Yesterday, you described it as that you were under a blanket and he started touching [you inappropriately] with his hands. Is that how it happened every time?” the victim was asked.
“Yes. He told me to do it so I had to do it,” said the victim, noting her younger brother was in the same room “watching TV or on his computer watching movies or his shows.”
After a short recess, the trial continued into the afternoon with the defense’s closing argument.
First, however, two more witnesses were brought to the stand, both employees at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, one of whom was the inspector of alleged sexual assault.
Both witnesses had previously worked on the case with Deputy District Attorney Michelle Chavez and corroborated that the mother of the victim and DDA Chavez had both not told the victim what to say during the trial.
Following this, Defense Attorney Romero began by outlining facts of the case that had already been presented to the court, noting 10 sequential days described by the victim was a “ludicrous” allegation based on the evidence that was already presented.
“Using common sense and logic, that is completely ludicrous,” said Romero.
He also noted that the victim seemed to enjoy talking about the allegations against “Doe,” describing that she had gotten out of her chair to mimic the actions of what had allegedly happened to her.
Romero argued that the victim probably did have access to pornographic material, which could have come from “her mom’s tablet” instead of from the suspect.
Romero summarized his contentions by stating that the inconsistencies present are irreconcilable with what they know, and that all the allegations “cannot be true together.”
“When you have things that defy common sense… when you have a clear admitted bias and motive [from the victim], I don’t know how a jury can find my client guilty,” he concluded.
At this Judge Amy Sekany dismissed the jury, and pulled both attorneys for an off the record for a discussion of the trial and the testimony of the victim.