Posted on 03/04/2006 7:23:49 PM PST by wagglebee
His parents hugged each other in the Bridgeview courtroom as 20-year-old Adrian Missbrenner was acquitted Friday of charges he raped a Naperville girl in an assault captured on videotape during a 2002 party in the family's Burr Ridge home.
But his parents had to wait five hours to share their joy with their son, who late Friday was processed out of Cook County Jail, where he has been detained since last May.
"I want to hug him. I haven't hugged him for nine months,'' his mother, Dobrila Missbrenner, said after leaving the courtroom Friday evening.
She got her wish about 10:30 p.m. when the young Missbrenner walked out of the jail wearing a black leather jacket, jeans and a big smile.
"Now everybody knows what really happened. They made it out to be something it wasn't," Missbrenner said, citing the tape of the alleged assault as a key factor in his acquittal.
The six-man, six-woman jury deliberated for over four hours on Friday before acquitting Missbrenner of criminal sexual assault and child pornography charges. Prosecutors argued the videotape shot during the party showed the 16-year-old girl was too drunk to knowingly consent to having sex with Missbrenner, then 17, and two other men charged with sexually assaulting her.
Family members and Missbrenner's attorneys insisted the 14-minute tape showed the sex was consensual.
"We think justice has finally prevailed,'' Missbrenner's father, Damir Missbrenner, said after the verdict. "We're happy to finally have our son back.''
The verdicts come after Missbrenner fled in 2004 to Serbia while free on bail. He returned voluntarily last May and has been jailed since then.
Jurors left without commenting on their deliberations or the case, which drew national attention, particularly after Judge Kerry M. Kennedy on Tuesday threatened Missbrenner's accuser with contempt charges after she refused to watch the videotape in court.
That warning outraged crime-victim advocates, and Kennedy backed off a day later, ruling that the woman didn't have to watch the tape during her cross-examination by Missbrenner's lawyers.
Missbrenner's family said they believed the tape was critical in winning his acquittal.
"The tape all along showed she was consenting. She was participating,'' Dobrila Missbrenner said, blasting prosecutors for filing criminal charges not only against her son, but against two of his friends who also were accused of assaulting the girl.
One of those men, Christopher Robbins of Brookfield, was acquitted last year of all charges and was in the courtroom Friday when Missbrenner was acquitted. He declined to comment on the verdict.
A third man, Burim Bezeri of Lyons, also was charged with assaulting the girl, but he vanished in September 2004 and is believed to be hiding in eastern Europe. Dobrila Missbrenner said she hopes Bezeri returns to the United States because she believes he also would be acquitted of the charges he faces.
"It's happened two times. It needs to happen one more time,'' Missbrenner said.
While two separate juries have acquitted Missbrenner and Robbins of illegal conduct, a spokesman for Cook County State's Attorney Dick Devine defended the decision to file criminal charges against the men.
"This case was brought in good faith based on the evidence we had of a young girl being assaulted,'' said spokesman John Gorman. "We have no second thoughts about bringing this case.''
Mom admits his error
As for Friday's acquittal: "We don't agree with the verdict, but we respect it,'' Gorman said.
Missbrenner's accuser, now 20, wasn't in the courtroom when the verdicts were announced, nor were her mother and two sisters, who had been present earlier in the day for final arguments.
A family attorney, though, called the acquittal "very disappointing.''
"It sends the wrong message (that) when the girl is drunk and unconscious, you may not be held accountable for your actions,'' said attorney George Acosta, who represents the woman in a pending civil suit against Missbrenner.
Striking a note that her son's attorney sounded during his closing arguments, Dobrila Missbrenner acknowledged that her son erred in drinking alcohol and having sex with the teen during the Dec. 7, 2002, party.
"What he did do wrong was to have group sex and drink,'' Missbrenner said of her son. "It's not something I would say is all right.''
Earlier, prosecutors Cheryl Schroeder and Michael Deno urged jurors to convict Missbrenner, saying the tape showed the Naperville girl was so groggy and intoxicated it was impossible for her to consent to sex.
"This defendant and his friends knew [the girl] had no idea what was going on and they took advantage of it,'' Schroeder said. "There is no consent on that tape.''
She reminded jurors that after the sexual activity on the tape ended, the girl was spit on repeatedly and sexual slurs were scrawled on her legs and abdomen with markers. Missbrenner was in the room when that happened, although there was no testimony he took part in those acts.
"They treated her worse than you'd treat a dead dog in the street,'' Schroeder said.
'A moral issue, not a legal issue'
Defense attorney Patrick Campanelli, though, argued that while Missbrenner's actions may have been "morally wrong,'' he never committed a crime and regrets what occurred during the party.
"He regrets every day that night,'' Campanelli said, reminding jurors that Missbrenner was a 17-year-old high school student when the party occurred.
"What happened was an insult, not an assault,'' Campanelli said. "This is a moral issue, not a legal issue.'' Later, though, he argued the girl lied when she testified she was so drunk she couldn't remember engaging in any sexual activity.
As Missbrenner left the courtroom, Judge Kennedy reminded him that he still must successfully complete a three-year term of probation imposed last fall after Missbrenner was convicted of felony bail jumping for fleeing to Serbia.
"You're still on probation to me,'' Kennedy said. "Good luck.''
But if the guy is drunk...and the girl is drunk...why is it up to the guy to make that decision? I'm talking about real life....Do you really think a young man should be literally put in jail because he didn't realize the woman who was willingly opening her legs didn't really know what she was doing? Give me a break.
I guess if in the video she's the one removing their pants and getting on top of them you would have a point. I haven't seen the video, but what you're saying only makes sense if she's the one taking the lead.
He never should have been acquitted of the child pornography charge.
It was a whole pile of animals who deserved each other.
What a waste of taxpayer dollars.
If she was consenting to both the sex and the taping, you'd have to charge *her* with manufacturing child porn, too.
BTW, was she charged in connection with her underage drinking of alcohol?
I'd have to see the video before I would believe that that's what happened. Maybe it should be a lesser charge, I can't tell. In the article it says that some of the guys were spitting on her after they were done. It sounds to me like she was gang-banged.
FWIW, I have a really hard time believing that she was the taking the leading role here. Common sense just tells me that.
Logic test for your statement:
Would he likewise not be responsible for his behavior since he was also drunk?
Would she have not been responsible if she ran over a person while driving drunk?
I would think that providing alcohol to a minor and videotaping a sex act with a minor would both be prosecutable offenses regardless of any "consent".
Even which statutory rape laws are ignored and "Romeo & Juliet" exceptions within the law permit adults and minors below the age of consent to have sex, it is still criminal to videotape the act.
It is why the porn industry is required to obtain information on the subject when they shoot and retain it on file. Did they make the claim that they believed she was over 18?
At least when Rob Lowe videotaped a sexual encounter with a minor, he met her in a 21+ nightclub.
They're ALL wrong. Charge them all and convict them all. A crime is a crime.
"If she was consenting"? No. That is the whole POINT of "age of consent laws". She is too young to sign a contract or to consent. That is what legal guardians are for.
They don't mention it, but this was the case where last week the judge almost put the girl in jail for contempt, because she refused to view the videotape in open court and answer questions about it. The whole thing is a travesty, and will undoubtedly send a message to young girls to keep their mouths shet.
Considering that the lad in question was 17, you'd have to charge her too, for her role in filming underage boys.
The rapist was only 17 at the time, I have a feeling that there was no way to charge with statuatory rape.
It did mention it in the beginning of the article.
If she was drunk then she couldn't consent.
________________________________________________________
Sorry; but she made a really stupid decision but just because she made a stupid decision while drunk does not mean she couldn't consent.
I don't know all the facts of the case and I haven't (and DO NOT WANT TO) seen the video but they article said "she was participating."
Maybe we should teach our daughters to respect themselves and not get so polluted to the point where they will do things that they will regret later.
Don't get me wrong; I do sympathize with her.
I've been hearing this more and more lately. "Consent" is not a defense to statutory rape, but juries seem to ignore that.
We have a winner!
The rapist was only 17 at the time, I have a feeling that statutory rape wasn't an option.
So was the alleged rapist -- only a year older.
yep...strike three....
If I were Supreme Ruler, those jerks would be swinging at the end of a very rough rope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.