A Grant County man is free after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled nonunanimous verdicts were unconstitutional.

A conviction of first-degree sexual abuse against Bradley D. Moles of Mt. Vernon was reversed on appeal and remanded back to circuit court for a new trial by the Oregon Court of Appeals June 29, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana that criminal trial verdicts must be unanimous.

Grant County District Attorney Jim Carpenter opted not to retry the case and filed a motion to dismiss it June 29.

“I praise God that they changed the law to what’s constitutionally correct, which is not a technicality,” Moles told the Eagle. “If the law was changed two and a half years ago, I would have had two hung juries and never went to prison, but because the state went against our constitutional rights to have a unanimous jury verdict, I was wrongfully imprisoned for two and a half years.”

In 2017, Moles was tried on multiple sex crime charges involving a single alleged victim, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict, resulting in a hung jury and a second trial in 2018.

At the second trial, the jurors agreed Moles was not guilty of first-degree rape, second-degree sodomy, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration or incest, and 10 out of the 12 jurors believed Moles was guilty of first-degree sexual abuse to deliver a guilty verdict. At the time, Oregon law required only 10 of 12 jurors for a conviction.

“The State has the option of trying the defendant again under the new law requiring a unanimous jury for conviction,” Carpenter said in the motion for dismissal. “While the State is convinced of the guilt of the defendant, as were 10 of the 12 jurors in defendant’s trial, after careful consideration of the matter, including consideration of the wishes of the victim in the case, the State has decided not to pursue retrial.”

Before the Supreme Court decision, Moles was appealing the conviction because of five perceived errors at trial, including the nonunanimous jury verdict.

Rather than waiting for the appellate judgment, Moles said he withdrew the other four assignments of error — failure to grant a motion for a mistrial, jury misconduct and irregularities and two concerning his conviction for a crime that was not charged in the indictment — to be released immediately on the Supreme Court’s verdict ruling.

“I had a really strong appeal, but with the nonunanimous jury thing coming up, I had to make the choice,” Moles said, adding his attorney thought the appeal could result in an acquittal. “I’m very happy to be home with my family, and we are looking forward to a wonderful and bright future.”

Carpenter said in the dismissal motion that the state “does not concede the innocence of the defendant on the merits. Nor does the Oregon Court of Appeals reach a decision based on the merits of the case, but rather on the process of the trial.”

Moles had filed a motion for a new trial in 2018, alleging several errors including jury misconduct and error in instruction that “changed the outcome of the trial, raising confusion and contradictory conclusions of the jury.” At least three jurors wrote letters to the judge immediately after the trial, stating they were uncomfortable with the jury process and felt rushed or bullied. The motion was denied, and Moles began the appellate process.

“I’ve maintained my innocence from day one,” Moles said. “I was risking 25 years and being pushed to take a plea (by my attorney), and I continued to maintain my innocence through that. I want to give thanks to my friends and family and people of the community for the overwhelming support this whole four and a half years.”