Closing Arguments Heard in Vons Molest Trial; Jury Now Deliberating

Deputy district attorney Claudia Grasso, representing the people in the trial of Russell Cilibraise III, the La Mesa man charged with child molestation in a Vons supermarket, asked the jury to do one thing when deciding the fate of the defendant: show common sense.

"Think about [the 9-year-old eyewitness] – brave [eyewitness]," she said. "A little bit of innocence was taken awa from him when he opened that door. If you believe him, you have enough to convict."

Cilibraise's attorney Cassandra Hearn, also asked that the jury exercise the same common sense in acquitting her client.

"If you're confused about the people's case, you're not alone," she told the jury. "Their case is based on the testimony of a confused nine-year-old boy. A boy who couldn't remember details, and who's actions outside the bathroom (on (surveillance video), don't match up to what his story is."

Indeed, the key to either a conviction or an acquital rests on if the jury believes the testimony of the boy, now 10, who is the only eyewitness to the alleged child molestation, of which Cilibraise is accused of having committed on June 15, 2011.

Grasso reminded the jurors about Jury Instruction 1190, which states, "a conviction in a sexual assault crime may be based on the testimony of the complaining witness alone." To that end, if the jurors collectively believe the testimony and other evidence, Grasso said they will have enough for a conviction.

"Why else would the defendant have his baby (or anyone else) hold his penis, if not to satisfy his sexual desires?" she asked. "[The defendant's] arms were at his side. He was doing nothing to stop this. That is not an accident. It is a wilful act."

During her closing, Hearn attempted to place reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, by questioning the credibility of the eyewitness's testimony, attempting to claim that "every step of the way, his father was there, making sure his statements were consistent."

She then returned the jury's attention to the uncleanliness of the women's bathroom, which multiple witnesses said contained fecal matter on the floor and urine on the walls.

"Why did we spend so much time talking about the women's bathroom?," she asked the jury.

She added that given the behavior of both the eyewitness and his brother – they were seen camera laughing and joking around after exiting the women's bathroom, which they both went into after the little brother allegedly saw the molestation incident in the men's bathroom – that it's possible they were laughing at their own prank.

She posited that while in the women's bathroom, it's possible that the eyewitness and his brother were the ones who defacated on the floor and urinated on the wall, and that that was the reason they were seen joking around on camera.

She also said that the possibility exists that in order to not get into trouble from their parents, the eyewitness fabricated a story about exactly what he may have seen Cilibraise and his son doing when he opened the door.

Hearn also said that if what the eyewitness had seen – and eventually told his mother – was so heinous, why was there no action on her part.

"She continued shopping for 10-15 minutes after her son testified to telling her what he'd seen," Hearn said. "Why did she not seek Mr. Cilibraise out? Why did she not try to tell store management or even an employee?"

Grasso scoffed at that notion in her final closing remarks.

"The defense now claims that not only is [the eyewitness] not credible, but that he fabricated the entire story?"

She said that there are good reasons to believe the eyewitness.

"He's a complete stranger. He has no motivation to make up anything about the defendant," Grasso said. "The immediacy of what he told his brother. The mimicking of what he saw. And the consistency of the various accounts of his story."

Hearn reiterated in her closing that the people failed to present a case proving her client's guilt.

"It stands to reason that something else happened [in the bathroom area], and if you consider that, there's probably enough reasonable doubt there."

When closing arguments ended, the jury was sent into deliberation at about 2:10 p.m. As they did not arrive at a verdict by 4:30 p.m., deliberation will continue on Monday and throughout the rest of the week, until a verdict is reached.