 Martel Lee and his mother, Jenifer Jones (Photo: Kevin Mathewson/Kenosha County Eye)
On April 25, 2024, a criminal complaint was filed accusing Lee of second-degree sexual assault and intimidation. The complainant was a recent immigrant from Colombia. The complaint said the complainant, who only spoke Spanish, talked to police using an application on his cell phone that translated from English to Spanish.
Lee was charged as an adult and went to trial in Kenosha County Circuit Court on August 12, 2024. The case turned on the credibility of the complainant, who said that he and Lee were in the same classroom together, and that Lee had followed him into the bathroom.
The defense noted that the complainant had changed his story several times. At one point, he recanted, and then recanted his recantation after unsuccessfully attempting to take his own life by stabbing himself in the chest. The complainant told police that he had committed murders in his native country.
Lee testified and denied committing the crime.
Before the jury began deliberating, the prosecution dismissed the intimidation charge. The jury retired to begin deliberating at noon on August 14, 2024. They did not reach a verdict that day. The following day, just past 3:30 p.m., the jury announced it had reached a verdict.
Lee was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault. A news account said four jurors were weeping.
Sentencing was scheduled for October 28, 2024.
Two weeks before the sentencing hearing, jurors began writing letters to the trial judge and to the prosecution. One juror said, “I was one of the jurors who was not convinced. I am still not convinced. I felt bullied by other jurors who felt so strongly for a ‘guilty’ verdict. They eventually wore me down. Defense should have had a better case. He needed to poke holes in the state’s case. I believe if there was a better prepared defense attorney the verdict could have easily been ‘not guilty.’ “
Another juror wrote, “I would not say I felt forced or bullied into making a decision of guilt, but it was still so incredibly difficult and emotional to answer ‘yes’ to agreeing to the verdict. It was incredibly difficult because I still did have questions that were just not allowed to [be] ask[ed] or have the answers to.”
On October 18, 2024, a third juror told the judge in part: “I should have written this letter sooner, but I didn’t know exactly what to say and how to say it. Simply put, this case haunts me every day….Me, along with several other jurors believed he was ‘not guilty...’ Something was missing – some things didn’t just make sense. I fought for so long – as long as I could and honestly I wish I fought harder…. I felt I was eventually [w]ore down and ‘bullied’ into [the] verdict. I know there may not be anything I can do about it now. I could have said ‘no’ in court... Perhaps there is nothing to be done now but I would never be able to forgive myself if I didn’t try, at least.”
On October 22, trial defense attorney Michael Barth asked for a mistrial. Judge Gerad Dougvillo denied the motion. The judge gave the defense 10 days to file a motion to impeach the jury’s verdict.
On November 22, 2024, Judge Dougvillo granted a motion to vacate the conviction. The judge cited the “air of discontent” that was visible as the jurors were polled immediately after the verdict was announced. He said that was a sign that a conviction was not the true intent of all 12 jurors. Some of the jurors, the judge said, “allowed their position to be misrepresented.”
At that point, attorneys Carl Johnson and Pat Cafferty were appointed to represent Lee in a possible retrial.
On December 18, the prosecution announced it would not appeal Judge Dougvillo’s ruling. The case was set for trial in February 2025.
However, at a hearing on January 17, 2025, newly-elected Kenosha County District attorney Xavier Solis requested that the case be dismissed. Solis said his re-investigation of the case had turned up inconsistencies that had not been known before.
The prosecution had informed the defense that it had subsequently interviewed an instructor who taught an English as a Second Language Course at the high school. The instructor said that at the time that the complainant said he was assaulted, he was in a different part of the school and not in the same classroom as Lee, as the complainant had claimed in his testimony. With Lee and the complainant in different classrooms in different parts of the building at the time the complainant said he was raped, the evidence suggested no crime had occurred at all.
The motion to dismiss was granted.
– Maurice Possley
|