Jury returns verdict in trial of suspended Somerset Co. DA Jeff Thomas
Somerset Co., PA (WJAC) — The trial for suspended Somerset County District Attorney Jeff Thomas, who is accused of sexual assault, is underway.
DAY 7 (VERDICT):
After nearly three hours of deliberating, the jury has returned the verdict in the trial of suspended Somerset County District Attorney Jeff Thomas.
Thomas has been found not guilty on the most serious charges he faced, including sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault.
The jury did find Thomas guilty of the other six charges he faced, which include strangulation (in conjunction with sexual violence), criminal trespass, unlawful restraint, indecent assault without consent, false imprisonment, and one count of simple assault.
In regards to the charge of simple assault, jurors decided that Thomas was guilty of striking the victim but was not guilty of biting her.
“This crime was absolutely abhorrent, even more disturbing because it was perpetrated by a once-trusted public official elected to protect citizens from the types of despicable acts he inflicted on the victim,” Attorney General Henry said following the verdict. “We commend the jurors for their attention to hearing what was a living nightmare for the victim. We are hopeful this verdict offers her a measure of justice and that the upcoming sentence removes Mr. Thomas’s threat to public safety.”
“While Mr. Thomas and his defense team attempted to make inflammatory statements during a pre-trial hearing to shift the attention from the criminal conduct involved, our team maintained focus on justice for the victim,” AG Henry added.
Following Thursday's verdict, Judge Creany ordered that a sexually violent predator assessment be conducted in the case.
Thomas is scheduled to be sentenced on May 16th and has been remanded to the Cambria County Prison.
DAY 7 (DELIBERATIONS):
As of approximately 3 p.m., the legal fate of suspended Somerset County District Attorney Jeff Thomas is now in the hands of the jury.
Judge Timothy Creany reminded the jury that the "burden of proof" is on the Commonwealth and that they need to consider the credibility of the witnesses who testified.
Judge Creany also stated that the verdict must be unanimous and it should be based solely on the evidence presented in the case.
He also instructed the jury to not worry about the fact that Thomas did not testify.
Below are the 8 charges that Thomas is facing:
- Sexual assault
- Indecent assault
- Aggravated indecent assault
- Strangulation
- Criminal trespass
- Unlawful restraint
- False imprisonment
- Simple assault
It should also be noted that prior to deliberations beginning, the defense filed a motion to declare a mistrial in the case, based upon the Commonwealth's statements in their closing arguments.
Judge Creany denied the defense's motion.
DAY 7 (CLOSING ARGUMENTS):
Following a brief recess, the alleged victim, as well as her boyfriend, her friends who testified on her behalf and Thomas' wife Amy were back in the courtroom to hear closing arguments.
Thomas' attorney Ryan Tutera began by thanking the jury for performing their civic duty.
"We think that what we have presented to you is sufficient for you to come to a decision; proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
The defense highlighted "inconsistencies" in the alleged victim's testimony, specifically regarding the messages exchanged between her and Thomas.
"He's not the big, bad DA," Tutera added. And he asked the jury to "think long and hard" about the alleged victim's credibility.
"The two of them had something. What it is, we don't know," the defense stated.
Tutera also asked the jury to focus on the alleged victim's description of the alleged assault.
"I don't take any pleasure in demeaning somebody, or talking about someone's body, but how did the bra and shorts just 'come off'."
The defense argued that the two of them "had conversations that you don't have with somebody you want to be left along by."
"Would you have an intellectual and hypothetical conversation about rough sex with someone you find disgusting?"
The defense also questioned the methods of the police investigation.
"Does that sound like good police work; they told her to take photos of the injuries herself."
The defense continued to argue that the alleged victim and Thomas had a "consensual" relationship with one another.
The defense also asked the jury to consider the testimony of Thomas' wife.
"Do you think that was easy for her to get up here and describe immoral acts of her husband. Why would she get up here and lie?"
Based on his wife's testimony, the defense argued that "there is more to this story that they are not telling you."
The defense noted that Thomas' wife testified to seeing the messages and photos between him and the alleged victim, and then confronting her.
Tutera also argued that the prosecution had "no medical evidence," and stated that their "best evidence" comes from the wiretaps that state police conducted.
"All avenues lead to reasonable doubt," the defense argued. "The government has not made their case."
"A man's life and future swings in the balance and we trust that you will find my client not guilty," Tutera stated at the end of the defense's argument.
The Commonwealth then presented its closing arguments.
"We're not the government, he is the government (pointing to Thomas)."
The prosecution argued that the defense tried to "mislead" the witnesses.
Prosecutors told the jury to focus on the fact that the alleged victim told the same story throughout her testimony.
The prosecution noted that the alleged victim gave police complete access to her phone and her home, and cooperated with the wiretaps.
"That is her saying 'help me'."
The Commonwealth noted that all of their witnesses saw her injuries and referenced the DNA evidence recovered from the alleged victim's home.
"If this was so romantic, why did he leave after a half hour?"
"He relentlessly pursued her and she was trying to be polite," prosecutors told the jury.
Prosecutors also told the jury to focus on the context of the text messages, including the ones she sent to her friends in which she reportedly made fun of Thomas.
"She must have done a 180 then since she kept saying no to him over text."
The prosecution also reminded the jury of Thomas and the alleged victim's prior interactions, before the night of the alleged assault.
"The (alleged) victim hid in the basement of Rizzo's."
Prosecutors also discussed the alleged victim's testimony about the day after the alleged attack and her wanting to learn to defend herself.
"Are these the words of someone who had a date night, or someone who was physically and sexually assaulted."
The prosecution continued to mention the alleged victim's injuries, and also mentioned the defense's "false promises."
Prosecutors stated that the defense promised to present proof of destruction of evidence and that the alleged victim operated a "marijuana farm."
They also told the jury that the defense promised to "expose" the Windber police chief.
Prosecutors also argued that Thomas' wife lied on the stand and that she reportedly told police she did not know what the alleged victim looked like.
The prosecution also argued that Thomas attempted to "hide" what he is accused of doing. "He had resources."
At the end of their argument, the prosecution reminded the jury that the "only thing that matters" is what happened the night of the alleged assault.
"This case is about the brave decision to walk into a police station hoping that she would be believed. Tell her you believe her, and you do that by finding him guilty."
The jury is expected to begin deliberations later this afternoon.
DAY 7 (MORNING):
The defense continued presenting its case Thursday by calling three more character witnesses to the stand.
The first witness (7th total), a local Reverend who knows Thomas and his family, testified that Thomas is "law abiding" and "does very well in serving the community."
He also testified that Thomas ran his campaign for District Attorney on the platform of beating drug abuse.
The next witness, a retired steel worker and police officer, testified "I've never heard anything detrimental about him."
"Everybody seems to agree that he's a good guy," he added.
The final witness called by the defense told the jury "I believe he has a good reputation of being a peaceful man and a law abiding citizen."
Throughout Thursday morning's testimony, the prosecution continued to ask the men if they were at the alleged victim's home the night of the alleged assault.
The defense has rested its case.
The prosecution also called a rebuttal witness to the stand, an emergency physician, who deals with domestic violence and trauma victims, to counter the defense's testimony from Dr. Cyril Wecht.
He testified that he reviewed all of the photos and reports of the alleged assault, and also spoke with the victim.
He told the jury that the alleged victim's injuries were "consistent" with someone being punched and strangled.
The emergency physician added that "she was consistent with what she told me."
The defense argued that the ER physician "doesn't have enough experience with bruising."
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin after a brief recess.
DAY 6 (AFTERNOON):
Following a lunch recess, the defense called its fourth witness, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist and legal/medical consultant.
Dr. Wecht testified, via Zoom, that he viewed all of the photos of the alleged victim's reported injuries and came to the conclusion that "in my opinion, I find no evidence of injury."
He told the jury that the alleged victim's black eyes "couldn't be attributed" to a fist. "I only see faint discoloration and I cannot detect any swelling."
"I don't believe she was struck with a fist," he added.
Dr. Wecht also testified that he did not see any evidence of injury to the alleged victim's breasts and neck.
The prosecution argued that Dr. Wecht was paid by the defense to review the photos and give his "medical opinions."
The prosecution also questioned how Dr. Wecht only saw "slight discoloration" after reviewing all of the photos of the alleged victim's reported injuries.
Prosecutors argued that Dr. Wecht never examined the alleged victim in person and noted that the photos that had been previously shown to the jury did show the alleged victim's black eyes, as well as bruising to her neck.
Following a brief recess, the defense called two more "character" witnesses to the stand.
The first was a local pastor who testified that he, and others at his church, helped Thomas campaign for his position as District Attorney and told the jury that "he supported him politically."
"Everything I knew about Jeff was very level-headed," he told the jury.
"He had solid character; people were excited about his law and order stance, and reducing crime," he added.
The jury then heard from another character witness and a fellow resident of the Windber community.
The man testified that Thomas "abstained" from drug use and was reportedly known for "wanting to clean up the streets in Windber."
Testimony has concluded for the day and will continue Thursday morning.
DAY 6 (MORNING):
Prior to the prosecution continuing its cross-examination of Thomas' wife Amy, Judge Creany made a ruling on whether or not she could be questioned about a previous court order that reportedly prohibited her from seeing Thomas.
Judge Creany ruled that since the defense previously mentioned the alleged criminal charges that another witness was facing, then Thomas' wife was allowed to be questioned about violating the court order and the jury "may consider this fact when assessing her credibility as a witness."
When asked about said court order, Thomas' wife testified that she thought the charges were going to go away. She told the jury that she "lost it" on him but stated that the charges ending up being withdrawn and "she was exonerated."
"Because you are the wife of the District Attorney, do you get special privileges to ignore a court order?," the prosecution asked. "Just because you thought it was going to go away."
Thomas' wife was then questioned about their relationship and marriage, including their sex life.
"It's humiliating," she said about testifying.
She told the jury that, over time, Thomas allegedly became "less invested" in making their marriage work and stated that he never told her about being "falsely accused" of sexual assault until after he was arrested.
She also testified that she had downloaded Thomas' phone data, including his Snapchat messages, through an online phone program.
The prosecution argued that the alleged victim sent the photos to Thomas for work purposes and that his wife "doesn't know" the context of the messages.
When asked about the "current status" of their relationship, Thomas' wife testified that she is "supporting him through this (the trial), both emotionally and financially."
The defense then called its third witness to the stand, the alleged victim's neighbor.
She testified that she did not hear anything on the night of the alleged assault.
Her neighbor also told the jury that the alleged victim disclosed the alleged assault to her, but stated that she (the neighbor) "blew it off" because she claimed that she did not see any physical injuries.
The prosecution argued that one of its attorneys visited with the neighbor after the alleged assault at which time she reportedly stated that "she didn't remember" if she was home or not on the night in question.
The neighbor testified that she did not remember speaking with the Commonwealth attorney at her home.
Prior to dismissing for a lunch recess, the jury heard the recorded interview between the alleged victim and state police that was attempted to be played in court on Tuesday, but would not play due to technical difficulties.
Testimony will continue after lunch.
DAY 5 (AFTERNOON CONTINUED):
Prior to the defense beginning to present its case, Thomas' attorneys presented a motion to have three of the charges, false imprisonment, criminal trespass and unlawful restraint, dropped.
Judge Creany denied the motion and the defense began calling its witnesses.
The first witness was an employee of the Somerset County Prothonotary's office, whom the alleged victim had reportedly interacted with when she attempted to file a PFA against Thomas in 2019.
She denied the alleged victim's testimony that she told her not to file the PFA because it would only upset the person she was filing it against.
She also clarified that Somerset County court employees cannot provide legal advice, or assist with filing a PFA, and testified that she referred the alleged victim to victim services.
During cross examination, the prosecution argued that the alleged victim was "confused" and claimed that the original text that she (the alleged victim) had reportedly sent to a friend, about filing a PFA, mentioned the domestic services office, not the prothonotary.
For its second witness, the defense called Thomas' wife Amy to the stand.
She was asked about their relationship and marriage, and if she knew of the messages between Thomas and the alleged victim.
His wife testified that she "frequently" saw the messages but didn't see the "context" of them.
She did admit that she called the alleged victim and asked "is there anything going on that I should know about."
His wife also told the jury that when she asked her husband about the messages, he reportedly deleted them.
She testified that the alleged victim sent her screenshots of some of the messages and told her that they had met at Rizzo's restaurant.
"I didn't see anything concerning at that point, I felt relieved."
His wife then testified that, over time, she and Thomas reportedly "became distant" due to personal issues and spending less time with one another.
She stated that she was "always suspicious" of him and would view his messages on his phone "without his knowledge."
His wife claimed that she saw hundreds of messages between her husband and the alleged victim, including "provocative" photos.
"I was incredibly upset when I saw it," she added.
She also told the jury that she called the alleged victim and asked "why are your naked photos on my husband's phone?" To which the alleged victim reportedly responded, "I'm going to do whatever the I want with your husband and there is nothing you can do about it.
His wife then testified that she and Thomas eventually talked about the situation and "worked it out."
"It worked for a while," she noted.
She also testified that Thomas reportedly admitted to his wife that he and the alleged victim kissed one another.
His wife told the defense that she and Thomas eventually "took some time apart" and stated that she bought a tracking device and placed it on his truck.
On the night of the alleged assault, his wife testified that she and Thomas spent the night together, from approximately 1 a.m. on.
The prosecution briefly began its cross examination of Thomas' wife, stating that she did not have any proof that the alleged victim sent him nude photos.
Cross examination is scheduled to continue Wednesday.
DAY 5 (AFTERNOON):
Following a lunch recess, the defense continued its cross-examination of the case's lead investigator, Retired Corp. Mark Auker.
The defense asked about the alleged victim's plan to file a PFA against Thomas, prior to him being elected as DA.
The defense also attempted to play the original interview between Auker and the alleged victim, but technical difficulties prevented them from doing so.
The defense then again brought up the marijuana situation, to which Auker responded "this wasn't a marijuana smoking investigation."
The defense argued that the alleged victim had "inconsistencies" in her story, to which Corp. Auker responded "this has nothing to do with the (alleged) sexual assault. Everything she said about the (alleged) sexual assault lined up. The marijuana is not relevant. There was no inconsistency with her sex assault story."
The defense also continued to argue the extent of the alleged victim's injuries from the alleged assault.
Corp. Auker testified that she "always" had a consistent story when discussing her alleged sexual assault and that it is common for victims to not remember everything chronologically.
The prosecution rested its case.
DAY 5 (MORNING CONTINUED):
Following a brief morning recess, the prosecution called two more witnesses to the stand.
The first witness was Breanna Brown, a member of the Pennsylvania State Police Forensic Services Division.
She testified that authorities likely found DNA evidence inside the waistband of the alleged victim's shorts, from the night of the alleged assault, but said that they do not know for sure if the DNA belonged to Thomas.
It was a "seven trillion to one probability" that the DNA came from Thomas, she added.
She also told the jury that there was no DNA evidence found in the "crotch-area" of the alleged victim's shorts, which the defense argued as "proof" that Thomas did not sexually assault her.
The forensic investigator also said that testing was done on the "bong" that Thomas and the alleged victim reportedly used that night, and stated that they found DNA from "multiple contributors" but they could not "confirm nor deny" whether any of it belonged to Thomas.
During their cross examination, the defense also argued that DNA can get anywhere anytime, and that the alleged victim could have just "touched her shorts" to transfer it.
The 9th Commonwealth witness was retired State Police Corporal Mark Auker, who was the "lead investigators" in the case.
Corp. Auker testified about the interview with the alleged victim on the day she reported the alleged assault.
His recollection of said interview, the prosecution argued, corroborated the alleged victim's earlier testimony.
The prosecution also showed the jury empty beer cans that had been collected from the alleged victim's home from the night of the alleged assault, as well as three, blood-stained Q-Tips, which the alleged victim reportedly used to "clean herself up" after Thomas reportedly "bit" her breasts during the alleged assault.
Cross examination of Corp. Auker will continue after a lunch recess.
DAY 5 (MORNING):
Tuesday's testimony began with the defense's cross examination of the alleged victim's boyfriend.
The defense showed him some of the text messages between Thomas and the alleged victim that could be viewed as "flirtatious."
Her boyfriend testified that he was unaware of the messages that they had exchanged.
"Somerset County is responsible for their employees and they failed to protect her," he told the jury.
The prosecution then called its seventh witness to the stand, Agent Klawinski, a forensic detective for the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General.
Agent Klawinski testified that he specializes in computers and showed the jury a map, based on Thomas' GPS location.
He testified that it proved that Thomas was at the alleged victim's house the night of the alleged attack.
The detective also stated that Thomas had reportedly deleted a message between himself and the alleged victim, however, she reportedly still had the message saved on her phone.
Agent Klawinski also explained that although Thomas had his location turned off on his phone, the GPS tracking automatically connects to hotspots and WiFi, which is how investigators were able to determine that he was at her house.
The defense then argued that it is not malicious, nor is it uncommon for someone to turn off their location on their phone.
The defense also argued that the detectives were able to track the movement of Thomas' phone, not him.
DAY 4 (AFTERNOON CONTINUED):
During Monday afternoon's testimony, the jury heard from another friend of the alleged victim, who also stated that he knows Thomas "on a friendly basis."
The man testified that Thomas was one of his customers and corroborated the alleged victim's testimony that Thomas had brought her "alcoholic slushies" while she was at work.
He also testified that he saw the alleged victim the morning after the alleged assault and stated that she was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and sunglasses on a "hot day."
He noted that the alleged victims friends all made jokes about Thomas to her because she had no interest in him.
During his cross-examination, the defense asked if he was "receiving benefits" in exchange for his testimony and brought up alleged theft charges that he (the witness) was facing.
The defense asked if he was "bribed" by state police to take the stand.
The jury then heard from Windber Police Chief Andrew Frear, whom the alleged victim first reported the alleged assault to.
Chief Frear testified that he knew the victim through the community and that he had "ran into her" a few days after the alleged assault.
He stated that he noticed her bruises and met with her publicly to discuss what had happened.
Chief Frear told the jury that the alleged victim was "reluctant" to tell any Somerset County officials because of Thomas' position as District Attorney.
He told prosecutors that the alleged victim described the alleged assault in complete detail and told him that Thomas was reportedly responsible.
Chief Frear said he then instructed her to take photos of her injuries and "bag" her clothing, while he contacted authorities outside of Somerset County.
During cross-examination, the defense argued with Chief Frear about the extent of the alleged victim's injuries and highlighted some details of her testimony that were not initially reported to him.
The final witness to be called to the stand on Monday was the alleged victim's boyfriend.
When the prosecution asked him about Thomas reportedly visiting the alleged victim at her work, he responded "it was excessive for the amount of work that was being done."
He testified that she had reportedly asked him how to fight and told the jury that he "guessed" that it was Thomas who had allegedly assaulted her.
She was "dead behind the eyes, with the life sucked out her, and was curled up into a ball," he told the jury.
"I can't imagine a worse thing for a woman to go through," he added.
Her boyfriend also told prosecutors that "he blamed himself."
When asked about why he didn't contact the police, he responded "the legal option was out, I wanted to physically harm him (referring to Thomas)."
The defense is scheduled to cross-examine the alleged victim's boyfriend on Tuesday.
DAY 4 (AFTERNOON):
Following a lunch recess, a licensed clinical/forensic psychologist, Dr. Veronique Valliere, took the stand.
She testified that she specializes in deal with victims of sexual violence and how victims respond to sexual assault.
Dr. Valliere noted that she is a "blind" expert and does not know anything about the case.
She told the jury that only 2 to 8% of sexual assault cases are false allegations and testified that most victims don't usually report the assault right away.
Dr. Valliere told the court that most victims usually know their attackers and "delayed disclosure" is common.
She said that "power" is often a barrier that prevents victims from coming forward and reporting such assaults.
Dr. Valliere stated that everything the alleged victim testified to, in regards to the night of the alleged assault and the days that followed, is normal.
The defense argued that Dr. Valliere was "being paid" to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Testimony will begin again following a brief afternoon recess.
DAY 4 (MORNING CONTINUED):
Following a brief morning recess, the alleged victim's best friend took the stand.
Her friend testified that she was not attracted to Thomas and stated that he would repeatedly drive past her home in Windber.
The friend described numerous occasions in which Thomas reportedly showed up at the alleged victim's home unannounced and uninvited.
Her friend told the jury that Thomas would show up at Rizzo's and buy them drinks.
Her friend testified that the two never kissed at Rizzo's and recalled one time where Thomas reportedly showed up at the restaurant and the alleged victim "hid" from him.
Her friend also spoke about the day of the alleged assault and testified that she (the alleged victim) did not tell her about the alleged assault right away but stated that she knew something wasn't right based upon the way she was texting her.
"I could tell from her voice that she was upset," she told the jury about when she later spoke to the alleged victim on the phone.
Her friend reportedly asked, "was it Jeff?" To which the alleged victim responded, "yes."
"He really hurt me," the alleged victim told her friend on the phone.
Her friend said that she was "in shock." "I couldn't believe what I was hearing," she told the jury.
Her friend testified that she herself did not contact police because the alleged victim told her that "she had it handled."
Her friend told the jury that the alleged victim sent her photos of her black eyes. "I was very upset for her," she added.
During the cross-examination of her friend, the defense asked several questions, including why she didn't call the police and why she didn't go to the alleged victim's home the next day.
The defense also asked her friend why she didn't "encourage" the alleged victim to go to the hospital.
The defense accused her of "lying for her best friend."
The trial is set to continue Monday afternoon following a lunch recess.
DAY 4 (MORNING):
The defense's cross-examination of the alleged victim continued Monday morning where they asked her to re-describe the night of the alleged assault.
The defense asked her how she responded to Thomas allegedly asking her "are you okay" and "why are you fighting" during the alleged attack, to which she said that she either told him to "get out of her house" or stated that she couldn't respond because he was reportedly choking her.
The defense then asked why she waited to contact friends or neighbors after the alleged assault, to which she responded that it was 1 a.m. at the time and she had to look after her daughter.
"It was very difficult to come to terms with what had happened," she added. "I was concerned about surviving and my daughter."
When asked why she allegedly wore some of her clothes, that she had on during the alleged assault, while showering, she said it was because "it was a struggle to get her clothes off because she was in pain."
She was then asked why she did not go to the police or the hospital right away, to which she testified that "she did not want to subject her daughter to spending hours at either place."
She added that she waited to contact police once her daughter was with her father.
The alleged victim was also questioned about allegedly possessing a "small amount" of marijuana, to which she admitted to and said "I was being very honest with the police about the marijuana."
"A small possession charge is nothing compared to being sexually assaulted by the District Attorney," she stated.
The defense continued to question her about the marijuana, to which she repeatedly reminded the jury "what this case is really about."
She also testified that she went to the hospital about a month after the alleged assault for an infection caused by when Thomas reportedly bit her breasts.
To conclude its cross-examination, the defense asked the question, "can you accidentally cross over a line of consent?" And "could some of the Snapchats she sent be misleading?"
The defense also asked her if she had filed a lawsuit against Thomas for financial gain, to which she responded "no."
The alleged victim's testimony has concluded and the trial will continue following a brief recess.
DAY 3 (AFTERNOON):
Following a lunch recess, the defense showed the jury a transcript of testimony that the alleged victim gave on Sept. 23, 2021 discussing her communications with Thomas' wife.
The transcript reportedly detailed "all the times" that Thomas' wife had reportedly contacted her, either in-person, via social media or through text.
The defense also showed screenshots of text messages between the alleged victim and Thomas in which she reportedly sent him "kissy face emojis."
"Why were you responding that way?" the defense asked.
The alleged victim said that she was just trying to "appease" Thomas and show "respect" towards him.
She claimed that the messages had "empty meaning."
"if I knew these texts would've been read, I maybe would have put a little more thought into them," she added.
"I was trying to let him down easy but he wasn't understanding that."
"How am I supposed to tell him 'take a hike buddy' without sounding mean," she told the defense and the jury.
During the cross-examination, the alleged victim argued that she was not attracted to Thomas.
"I have standards," she said.
The defense then asked if she remembered "kissing" Thomas in a back dining room at Rizzo's, to which she replied "no."
The defense then read texts between the alleged victim and her friend, from 10 days after the alleged assault.
The defense argued that the message made it sound like she was telling the friend how to "testify." She stated that the message was about something else and was "taken out of context."
The defense then asked the alleged victim why she reportedly responded to the sexual memes that Thomas had sent her with "I love it," followed by "laughing face emojis."
She replied that it was "friendly banter."
The defense also showed the jury a message in which Thomas reportedly asked the alleged victim, "what are you doing?" To which she reportedly responded, "you?"
The defense continued to question why she continued the conversations with Thomas and asked about him.
The jury was then presented with more screenshots of messages that the alleged victim had reportedly sent to Thomas.
"I actually would have let you stop over for an hour or so," one of the messages reportedly read.
She testified that the message "was not an invitation" and that "she knew he wouldn't be able to come over anyway, that's why it was in the past tense."
"My connotation doesn't seem angry, it seems uninterested," she added.
"It seemed harmless," she said when asked why she continued to respond to Thomas' messages.
The defense then questioned the alleged victim about a series of messages between her and Thomas where they discussed BDSM and "rough sex."
She explained that Thomas has asked her about it and she claimed it was all "hypothetical." She stated that she was trying to educate him on the subject.
The defense then shared Snapchat conversations between Thomas and the alleged victim, further discussing the topic of BDSM.
"Maybe your wife would be into it," she told Thomas, to which he replied, "I want it to be you."
She then responded "not going to happen."
She noted that she thought these conversations were similar to his questioning about parenting and believed that he was asking for advice.
The defense asked her why she did not screenshot the Snapchat conversations.
"If I had screenshotted every creepy thing sent to me by a man, I would have a lot of screenshots, but if I knew it would have lead to an assault, I would have," she said.
The defense again asked her why she kept responding to the messages, to which she replied, "I didn't want the most powerful person in the county to be mad at me."
She was then questioned about a specific conversation in which Thomas reportedly brought up her ex-boyfriend.
The alleged victim reportedly stated "I guess I'm just good with my mouth." She told the jury that her response was a way to end the conversation with discussing her feelings for her ex.
Near the end of the Friday's testimony, the defense began to question the alleged victim about the night of the alleged assault.
She reminded the defense that she was "cowering" and "beyond scared" when Thomas showed up that night.
She said it felt like "hours of hell."
The defense then reenacted the details of the alleged assault using a dummy doll.
The defense continued to point to testimony that could be seen as "flirtatious" and sexual in nature and argued that there were discrepancies in the alleged victim's timeline of events.
The defense is scheduled to continue its cross examination on Monday.
DAY 3 (MORNING-CROSS EXAMINATION):
Day 3 of the trial of suspended Somerset County DA Jeff Thomas began Friday morning with the defense's cross-examination of the alleged victim.
During the cross-examination, Thomas' accuser was asked about the first time she met him and was questioned about her relationship to him prior to the alleged assault.
She testified that the two first met at a local restaurant, Rizzo's, and that she knew of him from where she worked.
The alleged victim told jurors that Thomas first began texting her about work but that the messages soon turned "inappropriate" and she blocked his number.
She stated that Thomas then began texting her from another work phone and their communications continued.
Thomas' accuser told the defense that she notified her managers at work about the messages and that he was "being inappropriate."
"He took advantage of my position at work to communicate with me," she added.
The alleged victim also testified that some of the messages that Thomas had reportedly sent her included details about his personal life and his relationship with his wife.
She told the defense that the communication then included "late night text messages" in which Thomas would reportedly ask her questions, such as "you up?" and "wanna hang out?."
"We weren't friends," the alleged victim noted in her testimony.
She then told the jury that Thomas had allegedly showed up to her house at least three times prior to the alleged assault, and that he would also show up unannounced at her work and at Rizzo's whenever she was there.
Thomas' accuser also claimed that he would ask her for advice on co-parenting, would allegedly send her photos of his kids and would "complain" about his wife to her. He also reportedly brought alcohol (alcoholic slushies) to her work, she testified.
The defense then questioned her about her attempt to file a PFA against Thomas to which she admitted to "inquiring" about having one filed.
She testified that she initially did not tell the staff at the prothonotary's office who the PFA would be filed against and that one of the staff members allegedly responded, "sweetie, you're just going to agitate whoever you serve, do you really want to do that?"
The alleged victim told the jury that Thomas "had no idea" that she filed a PFA against him and stated that it was never served to him.
The defense then argued that the victim was "flirtatious" with Thomas and stated that she had reportedly sent him "sexy photos" of herself while at Rizzo's, which she denied.
The defense also claimed that the two had reportedly "kissed" one another in the lower level of the restaurant.
"It was the contrary, that's where I used to hide from him," she replied.
The defense also showed the jury photos of the alleged victim wearing a hat that said "Somerset County Bureau of Investigations," which she admitted that Thomas had reportedly given to her.
Following a brief break, the defense showed the jury a portion of a text message that the alleged victim had reportedly sent to Thomas' wife years before the alleged assault.
"He's still just Jeff from Windber. I kind of just normally forget what his job is."
The defense asked, "if you were so worried to report the DA because 'he's the most powerful person in the county,' why would you say that to his wife?"
Prior to the message being shown to the jury, Thomas' accuser testified that she had never communicated with his wife.
"Which is it, either you're afraid of the District Attorney or 'you're just Jeff to me'?" the defense asked.
"Isn't it true that you're not afraid of Jeff Thomas," the defense asked, to which she replied "I am afraid of Jeff Thomas, he is a monster."
The defense then questioned her more about the PFA, at which time she clarified that she reportedly filed it before Thomas was elected as the DA.
She testified that she got the time frame wrong "since the event was so traumatic."
Testimony is scheduled to continue Friday afternoon following a brief lunch recess.
DAY 2 (AFTERNOON CONTINUED):
Following another brief recess, the victim testified about her public meeting that she had with Thomas following the recorded phone call.
Thomas and the victim allegedly met at the Primanti Brother's restaurant in Johnstown.
The victim told the jury that she was in possession of a cell phone and key fob, provided by state police, that acted as secret recording devices.
"I wanted him to tell me what he did. I wanted him to tell me that I wasn't wrong."
During the conversation, Thomas reportedly told the victim "I'm sorry. I wish I could say something to make this better. I'm confused."
"I was never under the impression that I was doing something that you weren't okay with. I'm sorry you're in this position. It will never happen to you or anybody else ever again. It's 100% my bad. We have two different versions about what happened," Thomas reportedly told the victim during their conversation.
The victim testified that a state police trooper was waiting for her outside the restaurant after the conversation was over.
"I needed to get out of there. My heart was pounding out of my chest."
After the recording was over, the prosecution ended its questioning of the victim and court was adjourned for the day.
The defense is set to cross-examine the victim during Friday's testimony.
DAY 2 (AFTERNOON):
Following a brief lunch recess, the victim continued her testimony and described her reporting of the assault to police.
She revealed that when one of her friends asked her who assaulted her, she responded "the DA of Somerset County, that's why I can't go the legal route."
The victim testified that a few days after the alleged assault, she was driving around the Windber area, after dropping off her daughter at school, and happened to pass by the chief of the Windber police department, whom she described as a friend and said that she "trusts" him.
She told the jury that she "didn't feel safe going home" so she reportedly texted the police chief, Andrew Frear, and asked him to meet her at the Windber Moose Lodge.
The victim testified that Chief Frear immediately noticed her bruises and said that she told him that they were "from someone who had been bothering her for awhile."
She stated that she never mentioned Thomas by name but that Chief Frear reportedly "knew" that it was him who allegedly assaulted her.
The victim told the jury that she described the alleged assault, in full detail, to Chief Frear, who then instructed her to take the clothes she was wearing on the night of the assault and drop them off at the police station.
During the testimony, the jury was shown photos of the victim's bruises and black eyes.
The victim stated that, a short time later, she was contacted by state police in Ebensburg for questioning.
She said that her conversations with PSP were "all a blur."
During this time, the jury was also shown photos that PSP took of the victim's injuries, including photos of her bare breasts to show where Thomas had allegedly bit her.
The victim then testified that she signed a consensual (search warrant) and police asked her to call Thomas so that they could listen and record their conversation.
She told the jury that the idea of contacting Thomas made her feel "conflicted."
The victim stated that troopers then followed her to her home to collect evidence before returning to the barracks where she placed the phone call to Thomas.
"My skin was crawling, my body was vibrating. I was getting ready to call the person who beat me. It was like a jar of snakes and the lid was coming off."
The jury then listened to an audio recording of the phone call between the victim and Thomas.
During the call, the victim told Thomas that people in Windber were questioning why she had black eyes and bruises.
Thomas reportedly denied any wrongdoing and repeatedly claimed that he and the victim had "vastly different" memories of the night in question.
Thomas then reportedly began to ask the victim if he was being recorded, leading to a verbal argument between them about the night's events.
During the call, Thomas allegedly claimed that the victim never told him to leave.
The two continued to argue on the phone and Thomas stated "I feel like you are trying to get me to admit to something that I didn't do."
The audio call ended with the victim and Thomas agreeing to meet in a public place.
DAY 2 (CONTINUED):
Following a brief morning recess, the prosecution continued its questioning of the victim who accused Somerset County District Attorney Jeff Thomas of sexually assaulting her.
Jurors were read text messages that the victim reportedly sent to a friend the morning after the alleged assault.
The victim reportedly told her friend that she had added a deadbolt to her front door and said that she "wanted to learn how to fight and defend herself," but did not go into detail (to her friend) about why.
The jury was also shown photos of the victim's injuries and the alleged victim testified that "she could not chew or swallow food for 3 to 4 days afterwards."
She added that "she wore a hooded sweatshirt, sunglasses and a hat on an 80-degree day." She said "it was embarrassing."
The victim also testified that she went and retrieved guns that had been "left to her" by a relative.
"If I had the guns the night before, I would have shot him. My life was in danger."
The victim told the jury that her boyfriend also "became a victim" and said that "he knew who did it," even though she allegedly never told him who it was.
The victim also testified that her friend agreed to teach her self-defense.
When asked why she didn't go to the hospital and/or call police right away, the victim responded "I wasn't going to act on anything until my daughter would be with her father."
She told jurors that because of Thomas' position as the DA, "the person I would have to ultimately tell was my attacker" since he was the "boss" of the police department in her area.
The victim is set to continue her testimony in the afternoon.
DAY 2 (MORNING):
On Thursday, the alleged victim took the stand once again where she described, in great detail, the day of the alleged assault.
The victim told jurors that Thomas showed up at her Windber home, unannounced, carrying beer.
The victim testified that Thomas claimed that he stopped at her home because he had a flat tire, but she stated that she did not see any vehicles outside her home.
The victim said that she was "appalled" when Thomas allegedly walked into her home.
She testified that she repeatedly told Thomas that he needed to leave and noted that her 8-year-old daughter was asleep upstairs.
The victim then told jurors that Thomas said that he "just wanted to smoke" and she testified that she let him "take a hit of her marijuana" because she "figured that then he would leave."
She then testified that he sat down next to her on her couch, where he reportedly attempted to kiss her.
The victim described feeling "disgusted, repulsed and really angry that he was in my house."
She testified that she then stood up and pushed him away, at which time he reportedly pulled down her bra and yoga shorts.
The victim claimed that Thomas then began to "bite" her breasts, and that she was "terrified" and "in pain."
She testified that her only thought in that moment was that "there is a stranger on top of me in my own house with my daughter upstairs."
The victim testified that she kept telling him "no means no" and stated that she hit him in the head, twice.
The victim told jurors that "there was nothing behind his eyes. There was no remorse."
She testified that Thomas then reportedly struck her in the face and that she started bleeding. She said that she felt "helpless."
The victim stated that Thomas then put his hand on her neck and pushed her into the couch.
She testified that she "couldn't breathe" and began to panic. She also stated that she thought "it couldn't get any worse but it did."
She noted that the felt "uneasy and uncomfortable" and was eventually able to briefly get off the couch.
The victim told jurors that Thomas then grabbed her by her hair and "threw her" into the corner of the couch, at which time he reportedly began to pull down her shorts.
She says that she felt a sense of "terror" and knew that what was happening "was not okay."
The victim again testified that she repeatedly told him no and to get off of her and leave, but states that Thomas "would not listen to anything that she was saying."
She told jurors that during the struggle on the couch, Thomas allegedly "smacked her" on her backside and then "got on top of her and put his forearms into her ribs."
The victim stated that she felt "violated" when Thomas then reportedly began to "digitally penetrate" her.
She stated that she thought about giving up, adding "this is someone that is supposed to keep you safe."
The victim told jurors that Thomas continued to assault her and that "everything went black."
She then stated that she was eventually able to free herself from him and "pull herself up" off the couch.
The victim testified that she "felt like she failed as a woman, a mother and as a human. And that couldn't protect her daughter in her own home."
She said that after the assault, she reportedly grabbed a blanket and ran upstairs.
When asked why she didn't leave her home, she told jurors that she did not leave because her daughter was still upstairs.
"There was a monster inside my house with my small child upstairs.....leaving was not an option."
The victim then stated that she told Thomas "you better not be here when I come back downstairs."
She says that she went to check on her sleeping daughter before returning downstairs, at which time she claimed that Thomas was "laying on her couch and masturbating."
The victim again stated that she felt "repulsed and disgusted" and walked into the room to grab her phone.
She testified that Thomas reportedly asked her is she was going to call the police, to which she allegedly responded "if you get out of my house now, I won't call the police."
The victim stated that Thomas then reportedly "pulled up his pants" and left.
The alleged victim described the entirety of the incident as giving her feelings of "incomparable fear and disbelief."
She says that it felt like the whole incident "took hours" but said that Thomas was only there for approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
The victim testified that she had to lie to her daughter about how she got her black eyes and reportedly told her that "they were from dropping my iPad on my face."
After the alleged assault, the victim told jurors that she got a shower and "all I did was cry."
She added that she did not immediately tell her boyfriend about the alleged assault and says that she did not get any sleep because she stayed up and "watched the door all night."
The victim ended her description of the alleged assault by confirming to the jury that she repeatedly verbalized to Thomas that she did not consent to what happened.
She added that she suffered two black eyes and bruises to her nose and throat from the alleged assault.
The prosecution is scheduled to continue questioning the victim, following a brief recess, before the defense cross examines her.
DAY 1 (AFTERNOON):
Following a brief lunch recess, the victim who accused suspended Somerset County DA Jeff Thomas of sexually assaulting her took the stand.
During her testimony, the victim read through pages of text messages between her and Thomas that had been exchanged between them over the years.
The victim testified that "9 or 10 days was a long time not to hear from him. It was peaceful. He was relentless."
The alleged victim added that Thomas had asked to "hang out" with her at least a dozen times, despite her repeatedly telling him no.
She also testified that Thomas reportedly asked her for "dirty photos" and would send her inappropriate memes.
When asked by the Commonwealth why she kept responding to Thomas' messages, she said, "I wasn't trying to make one of the most powerful people in Somerset County mad at me."
The alleged victim also told the jury that Thomas had previously showed up to her home, unannounced and uninvited, multiple times, before the alleged incident in Sept. of 2021.
The victim also began describing the day of the incident in question before court was adjourned for the day.
Thomas' defense denied all of the accusations that the victim made and is set to cross examine her on Thursday after she testifies about the day of the alleged assault.
"We thought that the openings went well and we look forward to coming back tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be a very important day. There's a lot of text messages. I'm not going to speak on the evidence in the case. We'll just be back here tomorrow. Tomorrow is going to be another long day and we're looking forward to it," Thomas' attorney Ryan Tutera said.
DAY 1 (MORNING):
Both the prosecution and defense presented their opening arguments, and Judge Creany went over the rules of the trial for the jury.
The Commonwealth told jurors that "the place you should feel the safest is inside your home and the person elected to keep people safe is the District Attorney."
Prosecutors argued that, in this case, the District Attorney sexually assault a constituent inside of their own home.
The defense then questioned why the victim didn't go to the hospital or contact the police sooner, and tried to diminish her credibility.
Testimony is set to begin after a brief lunch recess.
BACKGROUND:
Thomas was charged after he was accused of sexually assaulting a woman inside her Windber-area home in September of 2021.
Prosecutors allege that Thomas entered the woman's home, uninvited and carrying beer, and allegedly pushed her down and sexually assaulted her following a verbal and physical argument.
The case is being prosecuted by the Attorney General's office and is being overseen by Cambria County Senior Judge Timothy Creany, given the obvious conflicts of interest and high-profile nature of the case.
The sex assault charges came after Thomas was at the center of smaller personal and criminal incidents, which his attorneys say shows what the local political climate in Somerset County is, and the political vendettas against him.
Following his arrest for the alleged sexual assault, and the creation of a new law, Thomas was suspended without pay by Somerset County.
He has since appealed that ruling, arguing that the law cannot be retroactively applied.
Since his arrest in late 2021, Thomas has also faced other charges, including being accused of physically assaulting his wife during a Facetime call while they were driving in Cambria County. That case is scheduled to go to trial as well.
He also later accepted a plea deal to a summary offense of reckless driving in a witness intimidation case.
Molly Metzgar is currently serving as the acting District Attorney and plans to run for a full term.
Be sure to stay with 6 News online and on-air for complete coverage of the trial
ncG1vNJzZmivmpawtcKNnKamZ56axLR7y6iamqRfqb%2BqrctmmZ6fmaPAbrLOq2SsraOlsq%2BwxJ1krKedmr%2B0sdNmm5plkZiwtr%2FEnWSonl2osrnBwKVkmqujlsKtwA%3D%3D