Over the past three weeks, Severna Park Elementary School students have recounted stories of third-grade math teacher Matthew Schlegel touching their chests and thighs and dragging pencils around their private parts.
Some have also testified to Schlegel, 45, grabbing their waists and guiding them onto his lap.
The now-fourth and fifth-grade girls have spent hours in the courtroom testifying against Schlegel, a suspended Severna Park Elementary teacher accused of inappropriately touching his students in the classroom.
Parents have also testified, detailing how their children told them about allegations against Schlegel and the effects they had. One mother said her daughter seems more withdrawn than she was before third grade.
“She is not the same child,” the mother testified.
Schlegel faces 33 charges, including sex abuse of a minor, second-degree assault, and third- and fourth-degree sex offenses. His trial is scheduled to last until June 17.
His case is not the kind that often makes it to trial in the first place, experts say.
Ieshaah Murphy, an assistant law professor at Howard University School of Law, said criminal cases in general don’t often go to trial. Child sex abuse cases, she said, are even less likely to because they can be difficult to prove.
“Oftentimes if there’s only the allegation of a child, it can be difficult to bring that case into court,” she said. “If there’s no physical evidence, if there’s no cooperation and if the child is young, prosecutors may not be willing to take the risk.”
Murphy said there is less risk associated with taking a plea deal, and so attorneys and their clients might prefer that over going to trial.
In Schlegel’s case, defense attorneys maintain the suspended teacher has been falsely accused. Throughout the trial, they have attempted to highlight inconsistencies in testimony and point out how investigators cut corners.
When the case’s lead detective Yancey Quigley took the stand, defense attorneys touched on how the Anne Arundel County police detective only went to the school once and never checked records, like attendance or grades. Defense attorneys said the date ranges of abuse listed in charging documents were not consistent with the school calendar, either.
During cross-examinations of Schlegel’s former students alleging abuse, defense attorneys have spent hours asking questions in an effort to point out inconsistencies in what the children testified to and what they told investigators and their parents.
Defense Attorney Peter O’Neill asked one girl why she never told investigators that she sat in Schlegel’s lap, but testified to it in court. The girl said she remembered the detail after talking with her mother.
Murphy said that in child sex abuse cases, defense attorneys often focus on raising doubt. One of the ways they do this, she said, is by challenging the credibility of the accusers.
Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School, said that one of the reasons prosecuting child sex abuse cases is rare is because children don’t always do well when defense attorneys question them on the stand.
“It’s notoriously hard for kids to survive these cross [examinations] intact and for their testimony to survive intact,” she said.
Murphy said that if a child’s story is inconsistent, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are making something up. Fear or hesitation may play a role.
“So cross-examination of a child in a child sex case really needs to take into consideration that nuance,” she said. “And that’s why it’s important the defense have a strong theory about what it is they’re saying the jury should take away from this child.”
Murphy said the prosecution will need to build credibility of the children alleging abuse. She said that might mean explaining that “inconsistencies are to be expected.”
“What the children are saying becomes the heart of the case, and the jury will be examining what the kids are saying,” Murphy said.
Corroborating the children’s stories and bringing in an expert witness to explain why a child might delay reporting or seem inconsistent will help the prosecution’s case, Murphy said.
Prosecutors in the Schlegel trial have called parents and classmates to corroborate the statements of the alleged victims. While parents have shared emotional stories of how their children have been doing since third grade, classmates have talked about seeing students work from behind Schlegel’s desk, which is where students allege he would touch them.
Throughout the trial, the defense has also attempted to point out how rumors spread by parents might have led them to ask their children leading questions that caused children to make false accusations about Schlegel.
Murphy said jurors will wonder why a child would accuse someone of sex abuse if it didn’t occur.
“And that could be for a number of reasons,” she said, mentioning pressure from adults or police.
Murphy said that in these cases, the defense will often focus on answering that question for jurors.
Murphy said she could not say whether the prosecution or defense is more likely to win in child sex abuse cases. She said these kinds of cases are often “emotionally charged,” which can influence how jurors perceive the evidence.
“But, ultimately, the jury has to decide whether they believe this happened beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said. “And that’s a really high standard in our legal system.”
Have a news tip? Contact Maggie Trovato at mtrovato@baltsun.com, 443-890-0601 or on X @MaggieTrovato.