A defense attorney painted a picture of “Emporia Teens Gone Wild” during closing arguments in the trial of Raul Manuel Magallanez Jr.
Magallanez is charged with more than 50 sex-related crimes against young teenaged girls. Three cases, which have been merged into one trial, went to the jury late Friday morning in Lyon County District Court. Lunch was provided to the jurors, who began deliberations early Friday afternoon.
Magallanez has been accused of rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated indecent liberties with a minor, sexual exploitation of a minor, furnishing alcohol to minors for illicit purposes and one counts of aggravated intimidation of a witness.
Julia Spainhour, one of two attorneys for Magallanez, compared the alleged victims and young witnesses to the name of a video of young people that witnesses said the defendant had been filming. He allegedly called the video “Emporia Teens Gone Wild.” Police executed search warrants — one of them just last week — and were not able to find the video a witness testified she saw.
“There is a rumor — a rumor — that has been generated that there is a videotape,” Spainhour said. “That videotape is called ‘Emporia Teens Gone Wild.’ There’s speculation and rumor, and these Emporia teens gone wild needed to provide some kind of a fall guy — some kind of a scapegoat, some kind of a boogey man you can blame their behavior on. ... Let’s blame him for everything they’re doing wrong.”
Lyon County Attorney Marc Goodman reminded the jury that they have the right to use their common knowledge in deciding the case.
“That opens up your ability to bring in what you know,” Goodman said. “This is a case of teenagers and a continuum of teenagers and an adult male. These are not isolated little pieces. It’s a continuum of time through the end of 2005 and through 2006.”
Spainhour said the cases rest on three factors: accusations, motivation and the investigations into the cases.
“Because an accusation is repeated does not mean there’s evidence to support the accusation,” Spainhour told the jury. “... Rumors cause people to talk, people to say things, but it’s not evidence.”
She reminded jurors that rumor and speculation are “certainly not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Accusation, the motivation behind it and the investigation that supports it, that proves it, ladies and gentlemen. Proof. That’s what we’re here for. Proof. Evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation is true.”
Spainhour said that each of the girls had motivation for their stories about Magallanez. The alleged victims and young witnesses were not published, to protect their identities.
Girl No. 1 was in danger of being removed from her home because she had been running away, cutting herself and exhibiting other troublesome behaviors.
“All of these things are happening at a time when her mother is delivering her across town to her 23- or 24-year-old boyfriend,” Spainhour said. “... She doesn’t want to be removed from her home. She doesn’t want to be taken to detention.”
The second girl was having problems with alcohol and being truant at school. Spainhour said that Emporia Detective Lisa Sage told Girl No. 2 about a video allegedly taken of the girl and being talked about at school.
“And we have what was said in a confused ... account. A very confused account from a very confused girl,” Spainhour said. “...I’m not saying you can’t be sympathetic. I’m not saying you can’t understand there’s some problems here. But that doesn’t mean there’s proof. That doesn’t mean there isn’t doubt.”
Spainhour talked about Girl No. 3’s changing story about the date and place of the alleged sexual intercourse. The girl initially said the incident happened on Oct. 4, 2006; later, she said it happened on Nov. 4. She said that she was not supposed to have seen Magallanez after Oct. 4 and feared what her parents would say if she told the truth about the date.
Goodman said that circumstantial evidence can be considered to find a defendant guilty.
“Circumstantial evidence is based on inference, not personal knowledge,” Goodman said. “For example, in this case, it is an inference that if everyone is in one room and the bed is banging against the wall in the other room, someone is having sex. ... And don’t lose sight of the fact that the victims are 13, 14, and 15 and the defendant’s 32.”
Goodman said that Magallanez had opportunity to talk to the parent of a 14-year-old alleged victim’s drinking problem, but did not.
“She drank, and she drank a lot. And the defendant knew that,” Goodman said. Instead of going to her parents, “he just loaded her up and used her. Over and over and over and over and over. ... Where in this has he made any step to disassociate himself from these young girls?””
Goodman said that the “whole fabric” of the lifestyle unraveled when Magallanez became involved with Girl No. 3, who was 13 years old.
“If you are under 14, consent or what their parents did or didn’t do doesn’t matter a thing, it’s a crime,” Goodman said. “If you believe it happened, it is therefore a crime. She is 13. Adult males cannot have sex with 13-year-olds. Period.”
Goodman said that Magallanez had not expected Girl No. 3 to react the way she had.
“This is where teenagers are the demise of this whole series of events,” Goodman said, mentioning teenaged girls’ jealousy, fickleness.
“He didn’t bank on a 13-year-old girl obsessing on him,” Goodman said. “None of the others had.”