The jury in the trial against Tony Scott Cercy began deliberations in the case, just after 12:10 pm, November 20th. This following impassioned closing arguments delivered by both the Natrona County District Attorney and a Denver-based defense attorney for the accused.
Cercy faces one count of 3rd Degree sexual assault, after an alleged incident that occurred during the summer of 2017. This is the second trial against Cercy on such charges.
During a trial in early 2018, Cercy was found not guilty on one count of first-degree sexual assault and one count of second-degree sexual assault in Natrona County after a jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on a charge of third-degree sexual assault.
It is the third-degree sexual assault charge that Cercy faces in the facilities of the Hot Springs County District Court, presided over by the Natrona County District Court.
The alleged victim in the case claims that after a day of drinking with friends at the lake in June 2017, she attended a party at the Cercy home near Alcova Reservoir.
The woman claims to have passed out at the party and awoke in the early morning hours the following day to find Cercy performing oral sex on her.
The jury heard their final instructions just after 10:00 am, Tuesday. Natrona County District Court Judge gave the instructions to 12 jurors and 2 alternates, who are comprised of residents of Hot Springs County.
During his closing argument, District Attorney Mike Blonigen said the case was about one thing the courage of the alleged victim. He said that surviving the assault, reporting the assault, and testifying in court showed great courage on her part..
Blonigen also said that the evidence shows that the accuser is telling the truth, and that the jury has to decide if they believe her, beyond a reasonable doubt.
He then outlined the details of the accuser’s version of events in detail. Discussing how Cercy is accused of removing several items of the girl’s clothing including a pair of tight pants and the woman’s underwear. He then described the allegations of the alleged oral sex, and reviewed the sensations that had been discussed by the accuser on the stand.
After that, Blonigen discussed over forty attempted contacts, none successful, that were attempted from the accuser’s phone on the night in question. He also mentioned new evidence, not presented at the original trial, from the accuser’s iPhone, that showed a stock health app recording that the accuser was moving around at the time the alleged incident is said to have occurred.
Blonigent also pointed to new data from Cercy’s phone’s health app, that recorded movement by that phone, during the timeperiod in question. He also said that during that time, the camera app on the phone was deployed, which resulted in the capture of two black photographs, and two residual video clips, which were said to be created also during that time.
Blonigen said that while the health app may not be accurate as to the number of steps counted and distance traveled, the app does not activate by itself. Nor does the camera app. The District Attorney also pointed to testimony by Cercy from the first trial, that had been read into evidence during the proceedings last week, where Cercy claimed to sleep and not move from 2 am until approximately 9 am on the day in question.
“Why is she making forty calls for help in an hour?” Blonigen asked of the jury. He then asked “why would she leave the Cercy home at 3:30 am, if nothing is wrong?”
Blonigen then detailed the accuser’s journey from the Cercy home to a nearby friend’s trailer. Asking if the accuser didn’t get a ride from Cercy, as she has claimed, why would she do it with no shoes, while drunk, and unfamiliar with the immediate area.
Then Blonigen said that the accuser made her initial reports of the attack to intoxicated witnesses who were at the friend’s trailer. Citing expert testimony from Psychologists presented by both sides in the case, Blonigen dismissed claims made by the defense that the statements made by the accuser were inconsistent. Blonigen said that upon initial “outcry” of the incident, the statements she made were incomplete, but not inconsistent.
Blonigen said to the jury, that despite an incomplete initial outcry, the core details of what happened were consistent when she reported the alleged assault to her then-boyfriend and a friend who was with him, hours following the incident. He said that those statements were further consistent with reports made to medical personnel, law enforcement, and during testimony at both trials.
Testimony given by witnesses who claimed that the accuser was afraid to report to her parents or law enforcement, was also mentioned. During those testimonies it was said that the accuser cited Cercy’s money and power, as well as potential social backlash caused fear in the accuser, and lead to her declining to report, despite encouragement from friends.
Blonigen also called into question, when Cercy found out about the allegations against him. Saying that phone calls made the morning that the accuser ultimately told her father of the incident, indicated that Cercy had known previous to the day, and was making phone calls trying to “influence” the persons involved. Blonigen said that a call made by Cercy to the accuser’s phone, where Cercy is said to have spoken with both the accuser and her father, indicated this. It has been reported that Cercy told the accuser something akin to “we have to get straight what happened this weekend.”
It was further alleged that reports made by people close to the Cercy family that seemed to be at odds with the accuser’s version of events, were “friends that will say what they need to say to protect their friend Tony Cercy.”
The D.A. finished out discussion of the witnesses by saying that one witness who testified in court, who is said to have spent the night in question sleeping in the same room as Mrs. Cercy while the alleged attack was to have happened in an adjacent living room, gave an incorrect statement during early parts of the investigation. Blonigen said that the witness claimed that the accuser was still in the home at 6:30 am, following the incident, and that a dog had jumped on the accuser that morning and licked the accuser’s face.
During trial the witness acknowledged that she had made those statements early on, but said that the initial report was a mistake.
It was further said that the witness was responsible for an internet search from the Cercy’s Casper home, about how long a rape kit could be collected and tested.
Blonigen closed his intial closing statement by addressing DNA evidence in the case. He said that while the DNA isn’t “smoking-gun” evidence, it did help to corroborate the accuser’s story.
Closing arguments for the defense were made by Denver-based attorney Jeffrey Pagliuca, who continually asserted that the prosecution’s case made “no sense.”
Pagliuca accused the prosecution in the case with cherry-picking testimony and evidence that supported their case, and ignoring other evidence that did not support their case. “The science in this case supports reasonable doubt,” Pagliuca said.
The defense attorney pointed out that other than the statements given by the victim, there were no presented eye-witnesses to the incident, and that the alleged victim’s statements were “mere words” and didn’t represent evidence in the case.
Pagliuca said that that on the weekend in question, Cercy just went through his normal daily activities, and was unaware of the allegations until approximately three days after the alleged incident, when Cercy’s “world turned upside down.” Pagliuca continued by calling the accusations an “unbelievable” and “fantastic” story.
He went on to highlight parts of the jury instructions, that had to do with reasonable doubt. “You all know what reasonable doubt is. There are many reasonable doubts in this case.”
The defense outlined that they don’t believe that the accuser in the case has a credible story, calling her story “inconsistent,” and saying that she reported 4 or 5 different versions of events. Pagliuca further said that the witnesses did not support the accuser’s version of events, and said that the only thing that witnesses could report is what they had heard from other people.
Pagliuca also said that there was no physical or scientific evidence to support the accusations, either. He accused the prosecution’s case of “fudging” how drunk the alleged victim was said to be, during the incident and immediately following.
He further said that it would be impossible to remove the clothing from the victim, including a pull-over sweatshirt, a t-shirt, skinny jeans, and underwear without waking the accused victim. Pagliuca pointed to an incident reported by guests at the party, where a Cercy family dog licked the accuser in the face, and the accuser was said to react to the dog, brushing it away and moving.
“It’s implausible that she would sleep through that,” Pagliuca said.
The defense also asked the jury what possible motivations Cercy would have for sexually assaulting the accuser.
Pagliuca also said brought up a contentious point about barking dogs. An one-time experiment run by the defense claimed to show that if the events had taken place according to the accuser, four Cercy family dogs would have been alerted and would have barked. In turn it was said that the barking was of sufficient volume to wake two women who were reported to be sleeping in the room with the dogs.
Pagliuca said that, even without the dogs, Mrs. Cercy would have woken up to the commotion, and would have done something about it. Pagliuca then said, again, that the prosecution’s version of events “makes no sense.”
What did make sense, Pagliuca told the Jury, was that the accuser was drunk and fighting with her boyfriend in the day and hours leading up to the party where she would pass out on the couch. Pagliuca then theorized that the woman woke up in an unfamiliar home, having been “abandoned” by her friends and then-boyfriend, and began making calls trying to get a ride home.
“Why not dial 911?” Pagliuca asked. “It makes no sense.”
The defense painted a picture of a woman who felt angry and abandoned, who told a story about sexual assault, and was unable to walk the story back when it had gotten too big.
Showing a slide to the jury that was headlined “The Story vs. The Science, Pagliuca said that the science did not support the accusers story, but instead supports the story as told by Cercy.
Pagliuca said that if the events had happened according to the accuser, that there would be a “ton” of DNA evidence left behind. But pointed out that DNA testing of swabs taken from the victim’s body and from her undergarments, excluded the presence of Cecy’s DNA. He further said that the presence of Cercy’s DNA on the couch was understandable, as Cercy was the owner of the couch.
“Why didn’t the prosecution test the pants for DNA?” Pagliuca asked the jury, holding up the pants the accuser was wearing on the day and night in question. Pagliuca also asked why other areas of the underwear weren’t also tested.
“We don’t need to test them,” Pagliuca said from the podium, saying that the defense team had not conducted their own tests of the items. “We know.”
Pagliuca continued by saying the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense.
Closing out the proceedings, Blonigen stood for rebuttal. Pointing out that the arguments of the lawyers in the case were not evidence. Blonigen then said that several items that were alleged in Pagliuca’s closing arguments, were not supported by witness testimony.
Pagliuca had asserted that a possible reason for Cercy’s health app activating was because of a late night trip to the restroom. Blonigen pointed out that there was no evidence or testimony that Cercy had made such a bathroom trip.
Blonigen also addressed why further testing was not done. He argued that the further testing would not have helped and would have been easily dismissed by the defense.
“We know that the clothes touched the couch,” Blonigen said at one point. Also saying that the underwear and clothing had been bundled with other underwear and clothing following the incident, allowing for possible DNA transferral.
“Since when does sexual assault require a motive?” Blonigen asked the jury. Pointing out that “motive” was not part of the burden of proof that the prosecution needed to meet in the case.
Pagliuca ended his statements before Blonigen’s rebuttal, by asking the jury to remember the first day of court where the room stood and said the pPledge of Allegiance. “With liberty and justice for all,” Pagliuca quoted. Saying that Cercy deserved justice in the case.
Blonigen also closed out with a recall of the words from the Pledge of Allegiance. “Justice for all,” Blonigen said, “[the accuser] is entitled to justice, too.”
The jury was read their final insturctions and began deliberation on the case just after 12:10 pm, Tuesday afternoon.
We will update Oil City’s website when the jury returns with a final decision.
