Unpacking what occurred during a jury trial can be as exhausting as the trial itself. Certainly, there’s resolution, but in some cases more questions are raised afterwards and subsequently the trial then in some fashion goes on trial. Traipsing into the morass backstory surrounding a recent trial will require boots. The recent case in which 42-year-old Ron Howell was convicted of 6 counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Abuse along with a count of Attempt raised questions about the system itself for some, notably those who say they simply can’t believe Howell was guilty. Jc Tinsley for WROY/WRUL News reached out to members of the defense, prosecution, and jury in the hopes of gaining some insight from each angle.
To see where we’re going, you need to know the players. The case involves a now teenager who disclosed allegations from 6 – 10 years ago when she says the incidences happened. You have a perpetrator, the now convicted Howell who was a family member of the victim at the time and who says that his relationship with the victim’s mother deteriorated quickly which raised questions for some into underlying issues, especially details surrounding the divorce. Then, you’ve got a laundry list of alleged, potentially eyebrow raising connections on the prosecution’s side according to those on the side of Howell. All the evidence is circumstantial, so it boils down to who the jury believes without concrete physical evidence. In essence, it’s a he said/she said between an adult and a child and 12 jurors tasked with listening and ultimately deciding who they believe.
When asked about the atrociousness of not allowing a child justice for these crimes and whether it was worse than potentially serving justice to a man that could be innocent, defense attorney Strawn says, “speaking generally, in my opinion, it’s more heinous to convict a potentially, or likely, innocent man. I say that because if a person is assaulted, that trauma does not go away just because someone is convicted of it. However, if we get it wrong, more lives are destroyed. We know it happens all the time. I can count many, many people I personally know who have been convicted, spent very long terms in prison, only to be exonerated later. Those years cannot be gotten back.”
We also asked the defense and prosecution to weigh in on precedent. Rational people don’t want to believe that a child would make up allegations like these or aim them at a person incorrectly. With this verdict, we asked if one could argue that it sets a precedent at least in White County that any child, or any teenager with a potential axe to grind, could point these kinds of allegations against an adult and get a guilty verdict. Strawn says she wishes she could say this case set a precedent, but “this is how sex cases are. The precedent was set a long time ago. It just takes a whisper to destroy someone, personally, socially, professionally, and that stink does not go away. The general public is taught to accept at face value the allegations, ‘believe’ anyone who makes an allegation (especially one like this), and that is so drilled into us that it is unreasonable to think a run of the mill juror can overcome those beliefs without feeling like they are failing society in general. It stacks the deck against the accused even more. Since there is so much more media coverage of these kinds of cases now, it leads people to believe that it is happening in half of our neighbors’ homes—and that no one knows, so no one pays for it. Since there is a guy sitting at a defense table, he becomes the one chosen to pay for all of those other cases that aren’t prosecuted, instead of the one he is on trial for.”
Aud, on the subject, agrees that it doesn’t set a precedent. “First, there obviously was proof beyond a reasonable doubt with plenty of sworn testimony, videos of forensic interviews, multiple pictures, business records, court records, and government documents presented to a jury of fair and impartial persons, following a very thorough investigation by multiple professional investigators, who returned a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Sworn testimony is clearly one of the most relied upon forms of evidence or proof that is used in all criminal and civil cases in our court system and every court system throughout the world. Juries have the responsibility of evaluating and determining the credibility to give to each witness and piece of evidence that is presented.” Beyond that, Aud says, “The fact is that though many truthful child sex abuse disclosures in fact happen, many of them do not ever go to trial due to many reasons, one of which would be the difficulty to prove the case for lack of sufficient corroborating evidence or a victim unwilling to testify. This case obviously had sufficient corroboration and a victim ultimately willing to testify for a fair and impartial jury to return a guilty verdict after listening to and looking at ALL of the actual evidence rather than speculation.” Aud pointed to multiple cases in our area that he says show this is exactly how the trial was supposed to go. “Wabash County case 2021CF35, People v Adam Vaira. According to the records on judici.com, that case was initiated on May 3, 2021, with the allegations of sexual abuse occurring between May 1, 2000 and December 11, 2003 (far bigger time disparity than Mr. Howell’s case). Vaira was convicted of six counts following a trial and sentenced to natural life in prison. Similarly, in Gallatin County case 2018CF17, People v George Bivens, the case was initiated in March of 2018 for sexual conduct that had occurred between roughly 1999-2002, I believe (also much larger time disparity than the Howell case). Bivens was convicted of three counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child and sentenced to 66 years in prison between the three counts. In Saline and Hamilton County, there was People v Brian Bowlby. In Saline County case 2011CF22, Bowlby was originally charged in 2011 with 18 offenses that occurred between 2001 and 2003. Bowlby was sentenced to 270 years in prison in that case. In Hamilton County case 2011CF3, the case was initiated in January 2011 regarding allegations from June 1, 2005. Bowlby was sentenced to natural life in prison in that case.
Mr. Vaira, Mr. Bivens, and Mr. Bowlby were all represented by counsel (Vaira by private counsel as was Howell in this case) and had a trial with a fair and impartial jury. All three of them were afforded the exact same due process as Mr. Howell was given in this case. Just as it would have been in 1776, the primary evidence would have been that of sworn testimony or “words”; the primary evidence in almost all criminal and civil cases is sworn testimony. And just as the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” now, it was the same burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” at our country’s founding in 1776 before there was DNA evidence or even photography. The fact that it was the State’s burden to prove the defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” to overcome the presumption of innocence that exists BEFORE all of the evidence is presented was the same burden of proof that was instructed to the jury in all three of those cases mentioned above and the Howell case. To qualify to serve on a jury, upon oath and question from the judge, all potential jurors had to agree and accept that the defendant was presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of presentation of the evidence and that the presumption stuck with the defendant until they deliberated and determined whether or not the State proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To qualify, they all had to agree and accept that the burden was on the State. This presumption and burden was the same in the cases of Vaira, Bivens, Bowlby, and now Howell. Within Howell’s case, there were 10 witnesses called by the State and two witnesses called by the defense, work records of relevant individuals, certified copies of birth certificates and property records, multiple pictures, a video statement of the defendant, and three videos containing forensic interviews of the victim and her two friends who she had disclosed to individually at two different times: May 2020 to one and December 2020 to the other both of which were confirmed to have been before the victim disclosed to her mother in May 2021 that led to a full investigation and a disclosure that occurred only because one of the victim’s friends had disclosed to her family what the victim had disclosed months before which led to the friend’s family approaching the victim’s mother. The jury was able to view and consider all of the evidence before they determined that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Beyond a reasonable doubt became a centerpiece in this case. One juror said, “the fact of the matter is there was no hard evidence to suggest either way, but there were enough consistencies in the victim’s video, courtroom testimony and demeanor as far as answering the questions [the victim] was asked that pointed us in the direction of the verdict. Furthermore, the juror elaborated that during deliberation, there were 3 holdouts, a couple “hung up on the fact that we will never be 100% sure what did or didn’t happen. It was argued that the verdict was to be reached beyond reasonable doubt, but not without a shadow of a doubt. While we do believe he has committed the acts, as stated before, we will never really know for a fact.”
Aud would echo the juror utilizing the exact same phrase. “I should point out that the burden is “beyond a REASONABLE doubt”, not ‘beyond ALL doubt’ or ‘beyond a SHADOW of a doubt’ or ‘beyond ANY doubt’. A jury has to decide themselves what they find to be a reasonable doubt and if one exists. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’ is also the same burden of proof that exists in all criminal cases, from someone receiving a speeding ticket where the evidence is likely to be primarily just the word of the officer all the way up to First Degree Murder or Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child. It is the exact same burden of proof that must be met.”
To the connections in this case, people love a good conspiracy theory. States Attorney Aud says that’s exactly what it is. The connections that raise concerns on behalf of the Howell camp look like a game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon all stemming from one adult connected to the case prompting Strawn to comment, “would any other family have had the amount of pressure available to put on the State to convict him?”
Connections include that the individual allegedly dated Jason Barnhart, a divorce attorney at the time who allegedly pushed through a divorce that was eventually thrown out. Strawn says, “I hope that it got through to everyone that shady behavior during the initial phases of the divorce is a pretty good indicator that maybe some of the players in this case play fast and loose with the rules when they choose to. I doubt that the jurors had any idea just how big of a violation of ethics, civil procedure, and just common decency that first shot at the divorce proceedings really was. If they did, how could they trust anything from that camp?” Those divorce proceedings were granted in 2017, vacated and subsequently dismissed in 2018. The divorce was finalized in October of 2019.
The individual is the adult offspring of the owners of a business which came up in the trial specifically with regards to who worked and when and dissected everything from hours the individual worked at the store to circumstances surrounding the individual and the convicted operating the car wash.
The individual is currently a correctional officer at the White County Jail and the facility housed Howell there following his arrest. Aud says regarding this, “it is my understanding that the White County Sheriff’s Department had originally planned on housing Howell in another county’s jail if he was unable to post bond upon arrest just like the arrangement was made once his bond was revoked upon the verdict of guilty. It is my understanding that Mr. Howell was able to post bond shortly after being arrested and booked making the transportation to the other county unnecessary. It is also my understanding that it was made sure that the person connected to this case that works at the White County Jail was not working at the time Mr. Howell was booked and posted his bond.”
The individual is a sibling of the arresting agency police chief.
It’s also alleged that the individual is a family friend of Illinois State Police investigator Gwen Basinger who was subpoenaed but ultimately not called to testify in the case. It’s been said she worked at the individual’s family business for a time, and also worked for the Norris City PD. Aud says Basinger agreed that she’d worked at the police department almost 25 years ago (her LinkedIn profile supports this) but denied any other connection. Beyond that, Aud went on to say “Gwen Basinger is of high moral character in this profession and would follow proper procedures to not jeopardize a case if an actual conflict existed. The conflicts conspiracy theory is baseless and would be grasping at straws. Again, the defense is fully aware of everyone involved in this case and concluded no conflict of interest existed anywhere and did not take any steps to file anything to suggest that there was a conflict with anyone, and the defense never made any argument to the court or the jury regarding these ‘connections’. It’s a small community so there’s always some form of connections between people, but ‘connections’ does not equal ‘conflict of interest’. There was clearly no conflict of interest in this case at any level.”
For all these connections, some would argue that the individual was not the one on trial, but if you’re not taking the entire situation and the individuals involved in the greater ecosystem into account, you’re left with a he said/she said between a child and a man. While you may not want to question a child’s authenticity, don’t you have to when that’s all your left with as a defense? Strawn says, “We don’t live in a vacuum and there’s no way for a jury to reach accurate conclusions when they’re only given part of the story.” Moreover, she says, “the backstory in this case is the whole picture.” None of the jurors we talked with had input with regards to the relevance or not of any connections.
Aud says ultimately this case was a thoroughly investigated typical child sexual abuse case. “Once the disclosure came out, it was fully investigated with many aspects of it corroborated. I reviewed it initially, and I’m pretty sure that I requested more information as is my typical modus operandi. Among other things, I found the victim’s disclosure through the forensic interview that took place the day after she had disclosed to her mother to be one of the best and most credible forensic interviews that I’ve ever seen, if not the best one. The amount of details and specifics gave it even more credibility. The lack of exaggeration gave it more credibility. Her correcting an interviewer or others of certain details that they had gotten wrong gave it even more credibility. Learning about her character created more credibility. She disclosed to her mother on May 11, 2021, only because the father of one of her friends had contacted her and told her that he needed to talk with her about the victim. This was due to the victim’s friend disclosing to her family what the victim had told the friend in December 2020 had happened to the victim by the defendant a few years before. This only came out because the friend was worried about the victim due to what had happened to her. So, the mother had zero clue of what had happened until May 2021 and then inquired from the victim who gave her enough detail for the mother to know that she was telling the truth because of the descriptions of sexual behavior that the victim claimed the defendant had done to her and her knowledge of the defendant’s behaviors. And again, we know that the mother had zero clue of this until May 2021 while the victim had told her friend about it in December 2020. This was corroborated by the friend giving it more credibility. It was also disclosed that the victim had told a different friend about it in May of 2020. The victim gave more detail of what happened to this friend. This friend was interviewed, again professionally, with her statement corroborating what the victim had disclosed. And again, the mother of the victim did not know anything about what had happened to the victim at May 2020 since she was not told until May 2021. This second friend’s corroboration gave more credibility to the victim’s statement. The interview of the mother and the other witnesses corroborated all of the other surrounding facts. Other documents were reviewed to verify that the victim and the defendant no longer had any familial connection as of October 2019 with no conflict existing between the defendant and the victim’s mother, a fact that the defendant confirmed while testifying. The fact that the victim’s mother had no idea until after the victim had told two different friends and that there was no conflict between the mother and the defendant when all three disclosures of May 2020, December 2020, and May 2021 occurred made it clear that any theory of the mother making it up or planting it in the victim’s head was completely unsupported by any evidence and pure speculation. There was zero indication in the interview of any coaching. There was and still is zero reason to believe that this had anything to do with the victim’s mother and/or her prior connection with Mr. Howell. Anyone making that claim would be speculating without any evidentiary basis and without anyone at any point testifying or otherwise stating that there was a reason to believe that is the case. Furthermore, this thorough investigation revealed that the victim had ZERO motive to lie, further evidenced by her saying nice things about the defendant, amongst other things. Essentially, what I concluded through my reviewing of all of the reports, all of the video interviews, and all other relevant materials was the same as what the jury did after they reviewed ALL of the evidence and based their decision on said evidence rather than speculation or emotion: the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Ronald Howell sexually assaulted the victim in this case.
Furthermore, I concluded that the defendant’s statement to the investigators had several flags such as the claim to have NEVER been alone a single time with the victim in 6 years. This was the same child that he claimed to care for so much that he was trying to get visitation time with her following the splitting of familial ties with her, including spending money to have legal documents created and trying to get the victim’s biological father to sign off on giving the defendant the biological father’s visitation time if the biological father was unable to have visits with the victim and that this would have been done without the mother’s consent. The only time that he said that he could have possibly been alone with her was passing by her in the hallway of the house but not more than a split second. He also claimed to have never been in a bed alone with her though we presented a photograph that showed him in bed alone with her. His refusal to call the victim a liar during his interview with the police though she said he did these specific acts of sexual assault upon her for years certainly raised eyebrows, among other things. These are just some of them.”
Strawn says, “The fact is that Ron believed what a lot of people believe—if you tell the truth, you are in no danger. Unfortunately, many people do not figure that out until they are in prison for something they did not do, and it is too late to reconsider the decision to talk [to investigators]. I do not believe that Ron hurt himself in that interrogation video, but that Denton Aud’s continual statements mischaracterizing what Ron had said took root in the juror’s minds, possibly.”
Aud adds “I have to say that this conviction was a team effort though. From the investigators with ISP and DCFS whose job is to investigate to ascertain the truth from the evidence, the forensic interviewer, the counselors and advocates, and my staff, the conviction would not have happened without all of these people doing their jobs effectively, ethically, and professionally. Furthermore, this conviction certainly would not have happened without the victim having the courage to be able to sit on a witness stand under oath with her now convicted assailant staring at her and to disclose what he had done to her to 14 strangers and a courtroom of court personnel. In this situation, she is the brave and strong one. Rather than attack her for what resulted in the defendant being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on ALL relevant evidence by a group of 12 fair and impartial people selected with the assistance and consent of the defendant and his attorney, she should be allowed to move forward with her life.”
Strawn says she “absolutely” intends to file an appeal.
