Not Guilty Verdict in Rhode Island First Degree Sexual Assault Trial
Criminal Charges:
Man charged in the Rhode Island District Court (6th Division) for:
- Shoplifting, in violation of R.I.G.L. § 11-41-20
- Conspiracy – Misdemeanor, in violation of R.I.G.L. § 11-1-6
City, State, County and Court:
Providence, Rhode Island, Providence County
Rhode Island District Court (6th Division)
Case Overview:
A married man was accused of raping his best friend’s wife. The couples had close relations between themselves and among other couples in the community. They often spent time together, visiting one another’s homes, traveling, going out to dinner and elsewhere in the community, and supporting their children’s sports events. One night, a group met out in town for dinner and drinks. They hopped from one place to another, continuously imbibing alcohol. Everyone was intoxicated. At one point, the married man and his best friend’s wife were left behind alone, at a local bar, while others moved on to another bar. They shared a martini and talked. At one point, they left the bar alone in the man’s car and went to a small market owned by the man’s family. Though it was closed for business, the man had a reputation for entertaining his friends at the market during afterhours for food and homemade wine. He texted others in the group and invited them to join, but no one replied. The man and his friend’s wife were together alone at the market until nearly dawn, when he drove her home. Video surveillance captured them arriving at her home around 5 AM, him walking her into the residence, and then departing. Later that day, she told her husband she was raped. Based on her allegations, the man was indicted in Rhode Island Superior Court (Washington County) with First Degree Sexual Assault. He denied the accusation and demanded a jury trial. He was defended at trial by Attorneys John L. Calcagni III and John E. MacDonald.
Case Result: Charges Dismissed and Cases Sealed.
The prosecution alleged the woman was physically helpless, and therefore, unable to consent to sex. The Defense argued otherwise, claiming this was a consensual sexual encounter, between two consenting adults. The woman testified that she had an imperfect memory to the events in question, blaming the alcohol and her resulting intoxication. However, she recalled a few snapshots of sexual penetration of her by the man, to which she contended she did not consent. However, cross examination of her by Attorney Calcagni revealed that for married persons, the two had a relationship that was too close for comfort. Attorney Calcagni elicited testimony from the woman that she and the man often texted, spent time alone, flirted, engaged in inappropriate physical contact, got drunk, and sang karaoke together. The man was also known for referring to the woman in the presence of their friends, even their spouses, as his girlfriend. On the night in question, she confided in him over dissatisfaction with her marriage and was contemplating leaving her husband. She went to him for financial help. While alone with the man at the market discussing these topics, she and her husband did not exchange any text messages or calls. When the man drove her home the next morning, she did not wake her husband up to report the alleged rape and once she did, she failed to go to the hospital and did not even call the police for weeks. The man testified in his own defense, and reported that after drinking some wine and discussing her marital affairs and assets, the woman kissed him, and that her initiation of romantic contact evolved into mutual oral sex and digital penetration. Video evidence later depicted the two together, with no signs of a struggle or anything out of the ordinary. In the end, the woman’s lack of memory did not support her rape claims. Evidence proved she did things she did not remember. The man filled in the blanks and told the jury the rest of the story, which was supported by video and photo evidence. In conclusion, Attorney Calcagni’s closing statement prevailed, in that the two married persons, while under the influence of alcohol, betrayed their friendship and marriages by having consensual sex. The jury apparently agreed, returning a not guilty verdict in the man’s favor.