The alleged victim's stories were a mess.
Without the prior conviction, the chance of a guilty verdict would be near zero.
The defense had only to show that Jeff's prior conviction for possession for child pornography was due to his job and did not mean that he had a propensity to molest children.
To do that they had 3 witnesses.
1) U.S. Secret Service Agent Mike Adams. - He was actually called by the prosecution to testify about what the porn in question contained.
However, if the porn wasn't possessed for a sexual purpose, it would not show that Jeff had a propensity to molest children.
The deputy DA, Allan Smith, stated that he has viewed pictures of naked children. I bet that the judge, clerk, bailiff, and defense attorney have all possessed and viewed child pornography throughout the course of their job.
Why then, when Jeff views it during the course of his job, does it mean he has a propensity to molest children?
Because he was accused? What if Smith is someday accused? Would his statement then show a propensity to molest children?
The defense would use Adams to show that the porn in question was a small number of images, downloaded over a very short period of time.
There was also no evidence that one expects to find with pedophiles.
There were no emails or contact with pedophiles or attempts to contact children.
He didn't trade the images with others or visit websites or newsgroups where pedophiles gather.
His criminal history, which goes back a long way, shows nothing of a sexual nature.
2) An LAPD Detective who previously searched Jeff's computers.
Jeff's computers were seized and searched in November, 2001. No porn of any kind was found.
Smith stated in his closing that Jeff molested the girls because there was no "internet connect fee here," implying that Jeff graduated from collecting child pornography, to actually molesting children.
This is demonstraby false.
Both Alyssa and Ashlee claim all the touching occurred prior to September, 2001.
In November, 2001 his computers were searched and no porn of any kind was found.
It was only after getting a job as a sex crimes investigator that the porn was discovered on his computer.
3) Attorney Jeffrey Scott Yanuck, the attorney Jeff worked for.
He would have testified, albeit unwillingly, that he employed Jeff at that time and that they did work on sex crimes.
Jeff claims that the reason he didn't have any porn on his computer in 2001 and then did in 2002 was because his job as an investigator was the sole reason for possessing it.
This would have given the jury a nonsexual explanation for his possession of the porn and would have led to a not guilty verdict.
We know this is the case because the jurrors themselves said so after the trial.
