Skip to content

Jury foreman in Perrish Cox case points to lack of evidence

Perrish Cox AP

Initially, the jurors who acquitted former Broncos cornerback Perrish Cox of rape opted not to talk about their decision.  The foreman of the jury has had a change of heart.

“We were struggling with what we imagined could’ve happened versus what we were being asked to decide by the court,” jury foreman Mitch Summerfield told 9news.com.

The alleged victim claimed she was raped after she passed out in Cox’s apartment in September 2010.  Cox denied to police that he had sex with the alleged victim, who was pregnant with a fetus whose DNA matched Cox’s DNA.

“As part of the jury, we said, ‘Absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt’ that we believe he was the father and there was sex involved at some point,” Summerfield said.  “When that was and what condition she was in at that time — there was no evidence presented.”

But if the victim claimed she was passed out, and if Cox opted to tell police not that the alleged victim was awake and the sex was consensual but that he never had sex with her, what more did the jury need?

Though it’s possible Cox panicked when he was interviewed by police and opted to deny having sex with the alleged victim instead of trying to prove consent, Cox had the ability to take the stand at trial and say he had lied to the police, and that he had consensual sex with the victim.

That’s where the Fifth Amendment often hits a third rail.  Cox’s decision not to testify can’t be regarded as evidence of guilt, but his decision not to clarify the record of evidence resulting from his decision to waive his Fifth Amendment rights when meeting with police should have received greater weight from the jury.

Instead, the jury wanted affirmative proof that the sex occurred at a time when the alleged victim was passed out, something that only one person necessarily would have witnessed — and the only evidence from him was that no sex occurred.

“We would’ve needed to have known that she was really in a bad state when she was in that position,” Summerfield said. “At that point, we possibly could’ve said, ‘OK, he should’ve known that.’”

Still, it’s clear that the six-man, six-woman jury had misgivings about the outcome.  “All the women were crying on the way back from the courtroom,” Summerfield said.

Though it’s always easy to point fingers at the losing side in a trial, it seems as if the prosecutors in this case could have done a better job of making sure that the jury understood that they had all the evidence they needed to prove that a rape occurred.  Innocent people who have consensual sex typically don’t deny having sex at all, and they don’t decide not to rectify on the witness stand a statement given to police that, based on the verdict, the jury necessarily regarded as a bald-faced lie.

Permalink 39 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Home, Rumor Mill
39 Responses to “Jury foreman in Perrish Cox case points to lack of evidence”
  1. modellforprez says: Mar 6, 2012 10:03 PM

    ha ha ha c’mon son if this was big bum rozenbagger this woulda been lit up. nymsayin but its not big bum worthlisburger or slainsworth or Tyson or tupac. you see where I’m going. it was p. small Cox. wtf

  2. ezg1 says: Mar 6, 2012 10:05 PM

    Jury Nullification?

  3. joyjoy69 says: Mar 6, 2012 10:12 PM

    This is starting to sound more and more like an incompetent prosecution. You mean to tell me that they never asked the victim, “did you ever consent to having sex with the defendant?” If they did ask that question, and her answer was no, all the prosecution should have had to do was connect the dots for the jury and say “the victim never consented to sexual activity and then became pregnant after a period of time when she was passed out and he was alone with her. Since it is not possible to become pregnant unless a man inserts sperm into the woman, and she never consented, the only possible explanation is that the defendant engaged in sexual activity with the victim while she was passed out an unable to consent.” Are you telling mt this argument wasn’t made?!

  4. bigbadal21 says: Mar 6, 2012 10:17 PM

    Maybe he passed out and she raped him. Besides one athlete (Mike Tyson) convicted of a false rape charge is enough.

  5. rcali says: Mar 6, 2012 10:21 PM

    O.J. was also found to be not guilty. Thumbs down if you think O.J. was innocent and you have your head in the sand.

  6. bigkat74 says: Mar 6, 2012 10:26 PM

    Wow, really? All the DNA proved was he had sex with her at some point. Lying about that makes him a rapist? As the foreman stated, there was no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that she was assaulted on the night in question.

  7. dionoil says: Mar 6, 2012 10:33 PM

    “Innocent people who have consensual sex typically don’t deny having sex at all”

    You’ve clearly never never took a girl home from the bar at closing time.

  8. babyhorsemorgan says: Mar 6, 2012 10:38 PM

    “Even this worthless piece of $hit, you must acquit.”.

  9. guitarrebel says: Mar 6, 2012 10:51 PM

    He may have gotten away with rape, but he can subtract a healthy portion of his paycheck for the next 18 years because of it.

  10. pftcensorssuck says: Mar 6, 2012 10:53 PM

    This had to be the single dumbest jury in the history of our judicial system.

    She claims she was passed out and raped. He claims he didn’t touch her. Because she can’t prove he did, he’s innocent, even though that’s HIS baby – from when he DIDN’T have sex of any kind with her????

    Collective IQ of 7.

  11. sportsmeccabi says: Mar 6, 2012 10:57 PM

    So by your reasoning, because he said he didn’t have sex, and the fetus matched his DNA, and the woman claims rape, it means he’s guilty?

    Need to have more evidence than the chick saying she was raped, you know. Otherwise a lot of innocent men would be in prison.

  12. trentofgilead says: Mar 6, 2012 11:06 PM

    What a lucky POS.

  13. gavinmac says: Mar 6, 2012 11:07 PM

    Prosecutors can’t point out to a jury that a defendant failed to rectify a false statement. That would be deemed to be an impermissible comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent.

    Also, guys falsely deny having sex with women all of the time. Maybe he had a girlfriend. Maybe he didn’t want to be on the hook for child support. Maybe he was embarrassed about it. Maybe he’s just a compulsive liar. Or maybe he raped her.

    Hard to prove a rape case beyond a reasonable doubt when the woman has no recollection whatsoever of whether she gave consent.

  14. KIR says: Mar 6, 2012 11:19 PM

    Does the defendant have to prove he’s innocent or does the prosecution have to prove he’s guilty? Your column reads as if the defendant needs the burden of proof. Why didn’t the prosecution call the other two people who were in the apartment to testify? The girl she had sex with and Vaughn who witnessed the girl on girl sex Maybe Cox was just as drunk as the alleged victim or just panicked when talking to the police. According to a Vaughn the alleged victim had girl on girl sex after Demetrius Thomas left the apartment. Demetrius wasn’t sure if she fell asleep or passed out. Where’s the proof to send Cox to jail for 10 years and ruin his life?

  15. tfbuckfutter says: Mar 6, 2012 11:19 PM

    gavinmac says: Mar 6, 2012 11:07 PM

    Hard to prove a rape case beyond a reasonable doubt when the woman has no recollection whatsoever of whether she gave consent.

    —————————————-

    Except that right there PROVES a lack of consent because an inebriated individual lacks the legal ability to provide consent.

    They don’t have to be passed out, fellas.

  16. anarchopurplism says: Mar 6, 2012 11:37 PM

    Let’s not forget that the alleged victim did herself no favors on her presentation of herself, her lifestyle and her activities of interest in court. The “girl on girl” comment from a 3rd party (using “rape shield regs” as a tool to prevent info from coming out that she wasn’t actually passed out…..hmmm, that sounded shady to me)……was the final straw.

    This was clearly a hazy, he said-she said thing and looked like not guilty (ie but still not necessarily innocent) from the start.

  17. tatum064 says: Mar 7, 2012 12:09 AM

    babyhorsemorgan says:
    Mar 6, 2012 10:38 PM
    “Even this worthless piece of $hit, you must acquit.”.

    ===============

    “if you dont know – shut your pie hole”

    Grow up. You don’t know the person, the woman or the circumstances involved. Its hear say. I will say this, between shootings, incidents like this going on, Tim Tebow’s popularity will soar in Denver.

  18. tatum064 says: Mar 7, 2012 12:13 AM

    pftcensorssuck says:
    Mar 6, 2012 10:53 PM
    This had to be the single dumbest jury in the history of our judicial system.

    She claims she was passed out and raped. He claims he didn’t touch her. Because she can’t prove he did, he’s innocent, even though that’s HIS baby – from when he DIDN’T have sex of any kind with her????

    Collective IQ of 7.

    ================

    This isn’t over. She’ll continue this with a civil suit – and he definitely have to testify. Cox isnt out of this by a long shot. And yes, someone will sign him….its not like he murdered anyone….

  19. tunesmith says: Mar 7, 2012 12:25 AM

    Don’t have sex with drunk girls.

  20. tunesmith says: Mar 7, 2012 12:27 AM

    There was plenty of evidence in trial that left room for doubt. Alleged victim’s girlfriend contradicted her testimony on how many drinks the alleged victim had had. There was doubt about whether the alleged victim had actually passed out or had just fallen asleep. There were anecdotes that indicated that alleged victim was very much active after Demaryius Thomas left.

  21. agor4004 says: Mar 7, 2012 12:45 AM

    you were a former litigator, not jury psychic. you can’t possibly know all of the evidence submitted to the jury, nor its impact during trial. You must allow for the possibility that reasonable minds could interpret differently the evidence you believe is so damning. As others have so aptly stated, there are numerous possible scenarios to be drawn from the evidence, rape being only one. Simply not enough to convict, and that ain’t jury nullification, its our system of criminal justice. Take it or leave it.

  22. kwken says: Mar 7, 2012 12:50 AM

    I had at first thought that the verdict was wrong. I now can see their reasoning behind it.

    She did not even know if she had sex until approximately six weeks later; when see had turned up pregnant.

    From reading about the trial, she had at least been “dating” three different Denver Bronco players. Kinda sounds like a groupie.

    Shame on Cox for not protecting himself but there is reasonable doubt. What is not being said; if she could have been intoxicated, why couldn’t he?

    I hope that they learn from this experience and teach those so that this type of drama never repeats itself.

  23. bearsrulepackdrool says: Mar 7, 2012 1:12 AM

    I hadn’t even considered that. They do need evidence otherwise its just her word against his.

    Just because she was pregnant by him doesn’t mean they had sex that night. No one even knows how far along she was. They could’ve been having an affair and she coulda made the “rape” accusation up so she wouldn’t get caught by Thomas (when/if he found out the baby wasn’t his).

    Ahh, I get it. They needed more evidence. No torn clothing. No way of knowing she didn’t want it

  24. bearsrulepackdrool says: Mar 7, 2012 1:14 AM

    Cox – third string corner = rape
    Thomas – first round pick/starter = consensual.

    I bet you if she hadn’t gotten pregnant we wouldn’t have even heard of any of this. She went there to get a pay day (don’t have to be a prostitute) ended up getting it in with the wrong dude.

  25. truthserum4u says: Mar 7, 2012 1:35 AM

    gavinmac says:Mar 6, 2012 11:07 PM

    Hard to prove a rape case beyond a reasonable doubt when the woman has no recollection whatsoever of whether she gave consent.

    ——————————-

    But one of the charges against him was that he had sex with a woman who was not in condition to know whether she was giving consent or not. If she can’t recollect it, and his teammate who was there testified she was passed out, then it would seem there was enough evidence to at least convict him on that charge.

    My guess is Cox won’t be so fortunate in the civil trial where he can’t claim the 5th and the burden of proof is much less.

  26. IainRWB says: Mar 7, 2012 2:55 AM

    You can’t convict based on an absence of evidence that he didn’t rape her. The onus is not on the accused to prove innocence.

    Supposition and substitution of interpretation for established fact is no basis for a conviction.

  27. bakjoi says: Mar 7, 2012 3:09 AM

    This guy was the foreperson? How stupid must the rest of the jurors be?

  28. souldogdave says: Mar 7, 2012 3:23 AM

    They tramped her with the “girl on girl” testimony from his fellow Bronco. Painted with that brush, EVEN THOUGH HIS CHILD IS IN HER BELLY, these idiots acquitted this foolio. But civil court is much different, and I assure you he will pay for the rest of his life.Sue the b@st@rd.

  29. korikill says: Mar 7, 2012 5:08 AM

    The whole ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ this is always tripping people up.

    A judge once described it as, ‘someone you don’t know says your kid stole a candy bar. Your kid denies it. You are more inclined to believe your kid, so the person you don’t know has to prove more to you to believe it than, say, if it was the kid next door (beyond the point you believe you child wouldn’t lie) as ‘reasonable doubt’.
    The jurors had to go into it with the mindset of the parent.

  30. phinfan527 says: Mar 7, 2012 6:35 AM

    I feel sorry for the kid when he/she grows up. Great stable parenting for that poor kid.

  31. schilhater says: Mar 7, 2012 7:35 AM

    ha ha ha c’mon son if this was big bum rozenbagger this woulda been lit up. nymsayin but its not big bum worthlisburger or slainsworth or Tyson or tupac. you see where I’m going. it was p. small Cox. wtf

    ————————————————-

    “you see where I’m going”…..NO because you seem to have a 3rd grade education and are about as illiterate as they come.

  32. rasalghoul says: Mar 7, 2012 8:17 AM

    It’s obvious he just tripped and his semen accidentally flew into her vagina. Damn these women for trying to trap athletes by passing out and being raped.

  33. jade amor says: Mar 7, 2012 8:35 AM

    joyjoy69 says: Mar 6, 2012 10:12 PM

    … Since it is not possible to become pregnant unless a man inserts sperm into the woman, and she never consented, the only possible explanation is that the defendant engaged in sexual activity with the victim while she was passed out an unable to consent.” Are you telling mt this argument wasn’t made?!
    ________________________________

    I am not religious, because it seems foolish, but I dont judge, with that said, maybe some of you religious folks can correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the “virgin” Mary give birth to Jesus, and never had sex? If she was magically impregnated, perhaps Perrish Cox is a magician as well….LMFAO

    All joking aside, the argument that “all she needed to do is say she never consented” is BS. I think he did it, but how does she get the benefit of the doubt that there is 0% chance she is lying? We are talking about a very classy lady, that f_cks her boyfriends friends. Her answer to that question could be more about saving her reputation, just saying… The fact is, the Prosecution had to prove that intercourse occurred on that night, with her passed out, and that was impossible to prove. It didnt help that there were text messages the next day about this same very classy lady having some “great girl on girl” after Thomas left the “party”

  34. patfic15 says: Mar 7, 2012 8:42 AM

    You really think she kept the kid?….I doubt such an upstanding citizen would choose such a path.

  35. thcnote says: Mar 7, 2012 8:52 AM

    phinfan527 says:
    Mar 7, 2012 6:35 AM
    I feel sorry for the kid when he/she grows up. Great stable parenting for that poor kid.

     She had an abortion. Don’t think the kid will grow up.

  36. realitypolice says: Mar 7, 2012 8:56 AM

    But if the victim claimed she was passed out, and if Cox opted to tell police not that the alleged victim was awake and the sex was consensual but that he never had sex with her, what more did the jury need?
    =================

    Please tell me you’re joking.

    A scared defendant lying to a cop and the word of the woman that she was passed out constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt to you?

    Have you ever drank so much that you passed out? The next day, could you recollect every single detail of what happened that night right up to the moment you lost consciousness?

    I didn’t think so. Chances are this woman couldn’t remember much of anything that happened that entire night. How could she possibly say with 100% certainty that a) she didn’t consent, and b) the sex happened after she passed out?

  37. realitypolice says: Mar 7, 2012 8:57 AM

    phinfan527 says:
    Mar 7, 2012 6:35 AM
    I feel sorry for the kid when he/she grows up. Great stable parenting for that poor kid.
    ============

    You can relax. She had an abortion.

  38. Grulks says: Mar 7, 2012 10:06 AM

    guitarrebel wrote:

    He may have gotten away with rape, but he can subtract a healthy portion of his paycheck for the next 18 years because of it.
    ============
    Not when she had an abortion.

  39. womanwithherownmind says: Mar 7, 2012 3:41 PM

    I think people need to stop assuming this man was guilty. I feel just because he is an athlete that he already is guilty in most people’s eyes. There are too many holes in the story. If she had not had enough alcohol to consider herself drunk then what happened?? Are they saying she was drugged??? No evidence of that happening. When they got ready to leave the club they had to find her outside with other guys. She had a boyfriend why was she going home with these guys?? She remembers going to the apartment does not remember going up the stairs but remembers DT messing with her at the apt. Sounds like she picked and choosed what she wanted to remember. While there she had girl on girl sex which Che testified to. I am sorry but you do not go back to a mans house after the club partake in that behavior and not be down for other things. She got herself in trouble and needed someone to blame. There was no proof that he forced himself on her. Oh and supposedly DT received a text from Cassius the next morning and told him he missed out on the girl on girl action why was he never called to testify??? He was the only other person that was there all night. HMMMM sounds like the prosecution did not want the truth to come out…..Just saying>>>>and she had an abortion so no child support

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!