Motions set what’s allowed ahead of McCormick trial

Devyn McCormick, 24, Cadott, was present for a motion hearing, Oct. 1, ahead of a trial set for Oct. 5 and 6.

McCormick faces one count of Second Degree Sexual Assault/Unconscious Victim. The charge stems from a July 2019 incident.

During the hearing, three motions were addressed.

Defense attorney George Miller brought forward a motion to bring up prior sexual contact between McCormick and the victim, during the trial.

Miller says there are messages that deal with a sexual encounter, which took place prior to the alleged assault, and that he was prepared to put McCormick on the witness stand that day, testifying that is what the messages are referencing.

“That puts consent in context in this case,” said Miller.

Miller says the jury would think it was very strange situation without the context.

“We’ve been always very upfront that this is a consent case,” said Miller.

State representative Wade Newell said he doesn’t understand how prior sexual contact puts anything into context. He says there are things they can talk about that don’t go into sexual activity, but gives context, such as saying they were friends or acquaintances, and had seen each other out at the bar earlier that night.

Newell also reminded everyone, that consent one time, does not necessarily mean consent another time.

Judge James Isaacson read the three elements of the charge that have to be proved – that the defendant had sexual contact with the victim, that the victim was unconscious at the time of the incident and that the defendant knew the victim was unconscious at the time of the sexual contact.

“I don’t know how any prior contact would have been relevant, is relevant, to those three elements,” said Isaacson.

Isaacson denied the motion to bring in prior sexual contact.

The state also brought forward a motion to allow in other acts that are similar in nature to the case in question.

Newell noted the incident occurred three months prior to the alleged assault, and is an almost identical situation, other than it involves a different victim.

“I think it goes to his identity,” said Newell. “I think it goes to motive. I think it goes to knowledge.”

Miller says there was no follow-up in that case and no charges filed, and seems like an attempt to introduce character or conformity evidence.

Newell says that case did have follow-up and was fully investigated, but the victim declined to have her own case brought forward.

Isaacson says he thinks the fact that McCormick has taken a similar approach with other women, is relevant to the case at hand, allowing the information in the trial.

All motions in limine were also granted.