Mower County Attorney Patrick W. Flanagan wanted to hear the word "Guilty."

Defense attorney Karen Duncan wanted to hear "Not guilty."

George Gilbert Thomas, 53, surely would have preferred to hear the latter uttered, too.

The alleged victim of a crime for which the defendant was accused also wanted to hear the "Guilty" pronouncement by a jury foreperson in court.

Opinions go back and forth about the mistrial declared in a Mower County courtroom.

On Feb. 24, Flanagan filed for dismissal of all charges against a 53-year-old man accused of having sex with a then-15-year-old pregnant teenager.

"The State has considered the victim's desire to move forward," Flanagan informed District Court Judge Donald E. Rysavy to dismiss charges against George Gilbert Thomas.

The defendant was accused of having sex with a teenager while he was employed as an outreach coordinator for the Welcome Center, an agency serving new immigrants in Austin.

The alleged victim exposed the allegation in 2002 and nine months after she said it happened.

In the middle of the mid-January trial, Judge Rysavy stopped the proceedings when Thomas' defense attorney, Karen Duncan, said she had not been provided all the evidence the prosecutor was using against her client.

The judge subsequently ruled in favor of the defense attorney and declared a mistrial had occurred.

However, one could also say he ruled for the prosecution that "double jeopardy"

-- the prevision in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a defendant being tried twice for the same crime -- had not occurred and, therefore, the prosecutor could retry the defendant.

Flanagan considered doing that, he said, and consulted the teenager who told him she did not want to testify again. Flanagan had the charges dismissed against Thomas.

In addition to the teenager's unwillingness to testify again, Flanagan based his decision not to retry on the inability to obtain "new information" that would have aided prosecution.

"If investigation reveals new information, the state will bring a motion to recharge the defendant," Flanagan said.

Defense 'puzzled'

Duncan, an Owatonna public defender, said she was a "little puzzled" by Flanagan's statement about possibly filing for a retrial in the future.

Duncan observed in the statement, Flanagan had stated, "The state conceded it didn't have sufficient evidence to proceed."

She also had mixed feelings about the trial's outcome.

"It would have been very satisfying to have heard a jury foreperson announce a 'not guilty' verdict in a courtroom," she said.

Does Duncan believe Flanagan will ever attempt to retry her client? "Not likely," she said.

The defense attorney said she would rather not have her client go through a public spectacle again. The defendant has been "tainted" in the court of public opinion outside the courtroom, Duncan said.

"This stain will remain with him," she said.

Public opinion varies

Emotions over the outcome of the criminal sexual conduct trial are mixed.

Jamie Scott, 27 of Austin, described himself as "your average Joe Citizen."

"I do not have any connection to or knowledge of anyone involved in the Thomas case," he said. "I consider myself a decent citizen, have never been to jail, do not partake in drugs. I do have an 8 to 5 job, I pay my taxes, I enjoy watching the Vikings on Sundays."

Scott is among those upset at the court's handling of judicial matters and who thinks the Thomas case is an example of the worst that could happen for everyone involved.

He said he wants current trial laws amended and "if necessary the United States Constitution rewritten when mistrials are declared in cases of obviously guilty defendants."

Scott said that should be done "for the simple reason their defense attorneys are not privileged to all the information the prosecution knows."

"Is this not ridiculous?" he asked.

The irate citizen compares it to a football game where the team on defense is not told in advance what the team on offense is going to do.

Scott concluded Thomas and his defense attorney are now "congratulating themselves for using the flaws in the American justice system to their advantage as another criminal walks."

Meanwhile, those who defend Thomas' innocence offer a different opinion.

Maria Acosta, whose teenage son was prepared to testify as a character witness for Thomas before the trial was stopped, said she is "disappointed."

"He worked so hard for the Welcome Center," said Acosta, who was employed at the agency when Thomas was there. "He organized the town meetings to talk about multi-cultural issues. He was in the Martin Luther King Day parades. He was a public figure who did a lot of things for the Welcome Center.

"The kids really trusted him. I know my own son did. George would call and see how he was doing in school. He really cared about them."

Residents raise concerns

Mower County Attorney Patrick W. Flanagan has held to open communications between the prosecutor's office and the public.

No issue prompts more emotional response than the Thomas mistrial.

That was evident Feb. 25 at the Austin Municipal Building, where Flanagan hosted one of the forums.

On that date in the midst of a discussion of how expensive it is to hold a criminal trial today -- estimates ranged from a minimum of $1,000 to $5,000 per day -- an unidentified citizen asked Flanagan, "Some people think the Thomas trial was money wasted because of the mistrial. What is in place to keep that from happening again?"

Flanagan said he must take responsibility for the entire affair.

Both Flanagan and Austin Police Chief Paul M. Philipp, also at the forum, denied the evidence in question was actually missing.

They agree it was not provided to the defense attorney, but said the problem occurred in the Austin-Mower County Law Enforcement Center's own handling of the evidence.

"Non-disclosure happens all the time," Flanagan said of similar evidence mishandling during a trial.

Philipp said, "We feel there was still enough to prosecute this crime."

Flanagan said new procedures are now in place to prevent the mishandling of evidence from happening again.

Flanagan said the case was a classic "he said, she said" kind of case. One person's word against another with no corroborating witnesses, no physical evidence, no confessions.

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the hardest thing to prove," Flanagan said.

When Wallace Alcorn, of Austin, again asked about the missing files, the prosecutor said the defense attorney "did see the missing evidence."

"I respect your compassion for the victim," but Alcorn said the public's "confidence has been shaken" and the Mower County criminal justice system "weakened" by the Thomas affair.

A Gerard treatment center unit monitor's cautionary note to Karen Hinckley, the therapist, provided more information, Flanagan said.

When the alleged victim told the unit monitor her version of what allegedly happened nine months earlier, the unit monitor informed Gerard therapist Hinckley, according to Flanagan, "I don't know whether to believe her this time or not."

Flanagan said the contents of the note could have been used by the defense attorney to attack the credibility of the complaining witness.

Flanagan said the teenager was absolutely essential to the case.

"I had no evidence without her," he said. "There was no physical evidence. No admission of guilt. Just her testimony."

As the public's prosecutor, Flanagan said he had to remain objective.

"I had to put my ego aside and listen to the victim," he said.

"Right or wrong, it's a decision I made."

Lee Bonorden can be reached at 434-2232 or by e-mail at :mailto:lee.bonorden@austindailyherald.com