Juror in Renner trial: Not enough evidence | GreeleyTribune.com

Juror in Renner trial: Not enough evidence

Rebecca Waddingham

An Evans man who was part of the jury that acquitted Samuel Renner said jury members didn’t think the prosecution presented enough evidence to prove its case.

Ben Gomez, who was the jury foreman, said only one juror initially wanted to convict Renner of the charge of child abuse resulting in death, but that person’s mind was changed by the end of 21/2 hours of deliberation.

Renner, 19, of Evans had been accused of shaking 7-month-old Davey Crespin to death. Davey died Oct. 9, 2003, two weeks after being hospitalized with symptoms of shaken-baby syndrome.

The jury could have found Renner guilty of lesser charges of negligence, but acquitted him on all charges.

Gomez said it came down to evidence, or the lack of it.

“A lot of it came down to them making their decision within 13 minutes of that baby getting to the hospital,” Gomez said, referring to a contention by Renner’s attorney that doctors rushed to judgment.

Recommended Stories For You

A medical expert for the defense, Dr. Janice Ophoven, testified there were other possible causes for Davey’s death besides being shaken, including a fall in which he hit the top of his head.

Renner said he was playing with Davey when the baby arched his back, lost his balance and fell off a bed where the two were playing, landing on his head.

Davey’s mother, Crystal Crespin, testified her son had fallen and hit his head on concrete about three months before his death, and doctors said that injury could have been compounded by a second, even minor injury.

Gomez said those explanations convinced the jury there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Renner held Davey and deliberately shook him.

“The case was about whether he knowingly or recklessly (committed child abuse) or whether there was criminal negligence on his part,” Gomez noted

Gomez said Renner’s explanation is plausible, given that Crespin said her son had a habit of arching his back.

The jury believed there was no way to prove intentional harm or negligence, Gomez said.

“Everybody testified he was loving to that baby; he would never hurt that baby,” Gomez said. “We don’t believe he was negligent. Negligent would have been if he left the baby there and went to the other room.”

Gomez took issue with comments from the deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case. Christian Schulte said the jury might have been confused by conflicting testimony from various doctors.

There was no confusion — just not enough evidence, Gomez insisted.

“I think, speaking for everybody, it was just a tragic accident,” Gomez said. “We felt for the family; we felt sorry for what happened, but we just could not convict him of anything. I don’t know if they hate us for that or if they don’t. But we just didn’t have enough evidence.”

It doesn’t make sense to put somebody behind bars that doesn’t deserve to be there, Gomez said.