Thomas Trial: Judge Neilson speaks out

MARENGO COUNTY, Ala. - After a week and a half of silence Claud Neilson, presiding judge in the trial of former Mobile County circuit court judge Herman Thomas, speaks out about his controversial ruling in the case.

Judge Neilson acquitted Thomas after a jury of seven women and five men couldn't agree on an overall verdict. Jurors found Thomas not guilty on seven counts, including sexual abuse, sodomy and assault. It left 14 undecided counts, including attempted sodomy. Once the jury was dismissed, Judge Neilson ruled not guilty on the remaining 14.

Jurors wound up deliberating for three days to come up with their partial verdict.

Here's what the judge had to say

"I never thought, I almost directed a verdict at the close of the state's case. I decided not to. I never thought that they'd prove the elements of assault in the second degree; that a belt or paddle on someone's buttocks is the use of a dangerous weapon as defined by the code of Alabama.

"The code of Alabama just says it's got to be used in such a manner that there is substantial risk of death or serious physical injury, and there was no testimony other than it stung or it hurt to show that there was any serious physical injury.

"And therefore, I decided to let them, see if they could reach a verdict on the assault charges. And on the sexual abuse charges I decided to let that go to see, that in my mind there was some real serious doubt whether or not there was forcible compulsion, which is a word that I didn't come up with but it's in the code of Alabama. It says, 'To be guilty of sexual abuse, it's got to be with forcible compulsion.'"

Judge Neilson was then asked about the alleged victim's testimony, and whether or not Judge Thomas' actions were deemed shady.

It wasn't for me to say. It was for the jury to determine. The jury would have to make that decision. Did I feel there was something going on? I don't know. I've dealt with criminals, and all of the stories were pretty much the same. And who knows whether they had talked among themselves. Of course, that's what the defense was trying to state, that they had concocted these stories. And so, that was the way they were viewing the story line. They said that the prisoners got together and came up with the same story."

Libby Amos asked Judge Neilson whether he believed the alleged victims had credibility.

"Some were credible, some were not, in my opinion. There were some that I felt like they were telling the truth and some that I felt like they weren't. I don't remember the names of the ones, but I think it was a mixed bag."

The judge went on to explain how he listened to testimony, and who he felt was telling the truth, from those who might not have been telling the truth.

"Well, I've been a judge for 35 years, and I have watched people testify in court, and I just had the feeling on some of them that some of them... It's just something that if you've done it for as long as I have, you kinda size up people and kinda have a gut feeling that maybe they're not telling the truth."

The jurors were obviously shocked at the judge's unexpected ruling. Judge Neilson talks about the verdict, and the reaction from the jury. He also talked about what it meant to poll the jury.

"Well, I've had cases before that have, you know, people have come back in and say, 'Hey, I didn't vote for that.' That's the next day. Well, the law of the state is once you leave the courtroom, you need to poll the jury. If you don't pardon the jury, you can't impeach their verdict.

"Either side normally, most of the time, in a civil case as opposed to a criminal case, say if a guilty verdict is returned, the defense has a right to say, 'Judge, would you please poll the jury.' And the judge will ask, 'Is this your verdict, is this your verdict?' and go all through and they all have to respond. And that's what's called polling the jury.

"Well, either the state or the defense can ask that the jury be polled. And that didn't happen (in this case). Neither side asked that it be polled. Of course, the defense didn't want to have them polled. They were satisfied."

"Do you think that was a mistake?"

"I don't know that it was a mistake. I mean, I can't say it was a mistake. There was no reason at that time that the verdicts weren't unanimous. Nobody said anything."

How it started

Things started heating up in the trial against former circuit judge Herman Thomas in March 2009, when he was arrested at his own press conference. Hours before, a grand jury indicted Thomas on 57 ethics charges.

Thomas was bonded out of jail shortly after being booked. Thomas was charged, at the time, with 57 counts of kidnapping, sodomy, sex abuse, extortion and ethics violations.

He is accused of paddling inmates from Mobile County jail and forcing them to perform sexual favors in exchange for leniency in the courtroom.

But the former judge, who resigned from the bench in 2007 when the allegations first surfaced, has denied all of the charges.

Officials said Thomas' troubles started with a family favor. Authorities said he arranged for his cousin, former Mobile County School Board Member David Thomas, to serve time in the newer Prichard jail rather than Metro, on a traffic conviction. At the time, Thomas himself asked to be investigated.

Shortly after his arrest, The Alabama State Bar's disciplinary commission refused to reinstate Thomas' law license. The panel deliberated for less than an hour Thursday in Montgomery before issuing a decision denying the ex-judge's appeal of the Bar's ruling to suspend his law license.

Then, on August 10, a grand jury added additional indictments against Thomas, racking up a staggering 103 counts. He was charged with using his position for personal gain.

Those 103 counts were reduced by four-fifths before the case went to the jury because the prosecution dropped charges involving four of the 15 men named in the indictment, and the judge threw out all extortion, kidnapping and ethics charges. So Thomas wound up only facing 21 counts in the end.

The trial lasted three weeks, and had an exhausting list of witnesses, experts and alleged victims.