ROCKLAND, Maine — A 27-year-old Rockport man was acquitted Wednesday afternoon of sexually assaulting a young woman who had passed out at his home after a night of drinking.
A Knox County jury deliberated for about 90 minutes before finding that William S. Holbrook was not guilty of gross sexual assault.
The verdict occurred after the courthouse had closed for the day. Neither Assistant District Attorney Christopher Fernald or defense attorney Steven Peterson could be reached for comment about the verdict.
Opening statements were held Tuesday morning. The prosecution presented its case, including from the alleged victim, through noon Wednesday. Holbrook took the stand Tuesday, Peterson said Tuesday afternoon.
In opening statements, Fernald said the woman had gone out drinking at the Smokestack Grill in Camden on the night of July 30, 2010. She met some friends and decided eventually to go to the home of a female friend.
The woman eventually passed out around 3 a.m. on the couch at the friend’s home. The prosecutor said the woman woke up at 5 a.m. to find her female friend’s boyfriend having sex with her. The victim was shocked and pushed Holbrook away, Fernald said.
He told jurors during opening statements that DNA evidence would prove Holbrook had sex with the victim.
Peterson urged jurors to keep an open mind and pointed out that the standard of proof was high to prove the alleged crime. He added that the case would come down to the credibility of witnesses.
Man that is some poor reporting. Was there actually good DNA evidence? Obviously not I’d say by the verdict, what’s the scoop?
The quality of writing and reporting at the BDN is really getting to be zero.
so start your own newspaper.
There was, but turned out to be a irrevelant. The question was whether it was consentual.
How would anyone know for sure unless they were present. Perhaps heading off to the
Smokestack to get blistered wasn’t such a good idea. Sounds to me like they both need
to leave alcohol alone.
so are you saying cuz she went out to her local bar to have a good time and drank too much she deserved it??? really?!?
Well, if she really was passed out drunk, I would venture to say that she was not able to consent.
It would appear that maybe somebody got drunk and got caught in the sack with BFF’s boyfriend.
While your statement is true, I always have to wonder why women continually put themselves in that position? Nobody is going to look out for you, so why do you make yourself so vulnerable?
because we are drunk and stupid. but it happens
I don’t think the reporter watched much of the trial. The only reason he knows that the defendant tesified is because defense counsel told him.
Just another classic case of he said, she said.
this story is missing many of the facts! Does BDN have any editors?
Steven Peterson is a good lawyer. He saved me from some faulty custody charges (bullsh!t) years ago. He at least fights for people he represents. GOOD GUY!!!!
This article couldn’t make less sense. Doesn’t anyone proof read before publishing?
If she was actually drunk, in the eyes of the law she was not mentally capable of giving consent, therefore he could be charged. Men should remember that when brining home an intoxicated date.
there’s more to the story then you guys are reading…I myself set in this trail for 2 days and heard both sides of the story..and the victim didnt have enough creditability…and the state didnt take into custody the main item..and have it tested…so you can point fingers at whoever you think was wrong here but theres always 2 sides of every story…For me i cant say he was innocent but he wasnt guilty by any means…
There’s alot to this story you people dont know..I myself set though this case and heard both sides of it…The victim didnt have enough creditabilty to stand on and her witness was just as bad..Theres 2 sides to every story just remember that…The main piece of the evidence was never tested so how could you send someone way for something that may never of happened..I myself couldnt say he was innnocent but i can say he wasnt guilty..So before you start pointing fingers at people you should sit in a court room and listen to the cases then make your remarks…
How can you people sit and point fingers who was right and whos wrong in this case..I myself set though this case for 2 days and there was alot that was said and heard…How can you send someone away for something that never happened..The main piece of the evidence was never sent away and tested… And the victim in this case didnt have enough creditabilty to her case along with her witness..So i can say he wasnt innocent by i can say he wasnt guilty..So for now on why dont you sit in on a case before making any comments…On for the DNA evidence there wasnt enough…