By Taylor Kaiser
Per the Navarro County Court at Law Media Policy, media coverage is permitted at the discretion of the Court. No audio or visual recordings were allowed during adjudication.
In accordance with Texas state law and to preserve the dignity of the juvenile respondent and complainant, names have been omitted. In juvenile court, verdicts of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” are not used; instead, the terms “True” or “Not True” are applied.
The Navarro County Court at Law Courtroom was silent as County Court at Law Judge Amanda D. Putman read the verdict. After three days of tearful testimony, expert witnesses, and cross-examinations, a twelve-person jury unanimously found that the allegations of sexual assault were not true.
Sixteen at the time of the accusation, the respondent was detained following the outcry of the 15-year-old complainant.
THE TRIAL
The trial centered on an encounter between the two teens in the parking lot of The Home Depot in Corsicana. Assistant District Attorney Aaron Lily argued that the complainant did not give consent and was sexually assaulted in the backseat of the respondent’s pickup truck. Defense Attorney Michael J. Crawford contended the encounter was consensual and suggested the complainant experienced “buyer’s remorse” due to a prior relationship with the respondent’s older stepbrother.
The State emphasized to the jury, “Buyer’s remorse does not happen on the lot,” referencing a text the complainant sent to a friend minutes after the incident, stating she “told him no.” In closing, the prosecution added, “He is not a monster. He needs to be rehabilitated. Where he should be held accountable falls to you.”
A rough timeline of the reported encounter followed. On or about January 11, 2025, the complainant and respondent attended a truck meet at the Academy Sports + Outdoors parking lot in Corsicana. Witnesses testified that the group of friends later went to Sonic and Schulman’s Movie Bowl Grille. At some point, the complainant entered the respondent’s vehicle, and they drove to The Home Depot parking lot to talk. CCTV footage showed the truck arriving at 10:44 PM and leaving at 11:14 PM. The complainant’s text to a male friend, alleging sexual assault, was timestamped at 11:04 PM.
THE TESTIMONY
Testimonies revealed inconsistencies. Some teens had reportedly been drinking, and the complainant admitted to consuming alcohol, though she did not see the respondent drink. At Wingstop later that night, the complainant told friends she had been assaulted, and an altercation allegedly occurred between the respondent and another male.
According to testimony from the complainant and her mother, she was taken to Children’s Medical Center in Dallas for a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) exam, and the incident was reported to police.
The respondent did not testify; however, his mother did. A recording of Detective Palacios’ phone interview with her was played in court. She stated her son immediately informed her of the situation, affirming it was consensual, and she agreed to a search of his vehicle.
The defense’s central argument focused on the quality of the police investigation. Detective Palacios admitted he did not investigate the presence of alcohol, interview witnesses, or obtain CCTV footage from other locations the teens stopped at throughout the night. He did not seek warrants to seize the teens’ cell phones, stating that a photo of a text message was sufficient, and that seizure of a phone is invasive and to be avoided. The defense questioned whether the investigation was based solely on hearsay and criticized the absence of metadata available due to the lack of phone seizure. The defense claimed the photo of the text thread could easily be fabricated.
Detective Palacios, who is not permitted to interview minors under state law, testified that he found probable cause to detain the juvenile based on evidence found in the truck and the outcry.
The State argued that consent requires an affirmative “yes,” not merely the absence of “no.” The complainant testified that she and the respondent had exchanged explicit photos before, but she distanced herself after receiving a sexually threatening message. A couple of weeks later, after the unfolding night of the truck meet and culmination in the respondent’s pickup, she claimed she felt sick. She climbed into the backseat, and the respondent joined her. He attempted to remove her pants, so she offered oral sex to avoid further advances. She told the jury she said, “I am too drunk. I need a minute,” but the respondent continued, saying she was “okay.” She sent the text accusing him of assault at 11:04 PM.
State witnesses included Dianna Liu, the forensic nurse who conducted the SANE exam. She testified that the injuries were consistent with sexual assault but could also occur during consensual sex. Dr. Lydia Bailey, Program Director at the Children’s Advocacy Center in Corsicana, testified that the complainant presented as neurotypical during her forensic interview, which used sensory-based questioning to assess credibility.
After closing arguments, the jury deliberated for three hours before finding the petition not true, concluding the State had not met its burden of proof.
NavCo spoke with the complainant’s mother, who said, “If it happened once, it will happen again. My daughter was the only one brave enough to come forward. It took a lot of courage for her to walk into the unknown of a trial. For months, she slept on my floor and cried herself to sleep.”
She added, “I will say it was a fair trial. The jurors found the petition was not true based on negligence and inadequate police work.”
Defense Attorney Michael Crawford told NavCo, “We want to thank the jury for working hard throughout the whole trial. Without the jury, the system in the U.S. would not be able to do what we did. My client lost 10 months of his life. He is eager to get it back, live by the truth, and be a good example to others.”
The State declined to comment.
NavCo reached out to Chief of Police Robert Johnson, his statement follows:
“It’s easy to question specific choices after the fact, but every decision was made based on the evidence and guidance available at the time.”
Chief Johnson stated, “That said, we review every major case to see what can be improved. Each jury is unique and focuses on different issues presented during a trial. Established techniques are routinely scrutinized by courts as well as ourselves. Our goal is always the same, to handle every investigation with professionalism, respect for all involved.”
About Author
Discover more from THE NAVCO CHRONICLE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.