ShareThis Page
Home

2 men acquitted under new U.S. gay hate crime law

| Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012, 7:02 a.m.

LONDON, Ky. — The first U.S. prosecution under a new federal law against anti-gay violence ended with a Kentucky jury acquitting two cousins of hate-crime charges while finding them guilty of kidnapping in a 2011 attack on a gay man.

Prosecutors had argued that Anthony Ray Jenkins and his cousin David Jason Jenkins attacked 29-year-old Kevin Pennington at a rural state park because of Pennington's sexual orientation, violating a hate crime law that was expanded in 2009 to cover assaults motivated by bias against gays, lesbians and transgender people.

It was not clear why jurors late Wednesday rejected that argument. They were whisked away immediately after delivering the verdicts and did not make any comments.

Anthony Jenkins' attorney, Willis Coffey, said after the trial that jurors didn't find Pennington's account of the events credible.

“You'd like to have an acquittal on all counts, but he's happy he was found not guilty of a hate crime,” Coffey said of his client. “So am I.”

Prosecutors said they would issue a statement later.

Government attorneys have said this is the first U.S. prosecution charging a violation of the sexual orientation section of the Matthew Shepard-James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed in 2009.

Pennington held hands with family members and let out an audible sigh when the not-guilty verdicts on the hate-crimes charges were announced. He left the courtroom without talking to news reporters.

Jimmy Jenkins, an uncle who raised Anthony Jenkins, dropped his head into his hands and cried when the cousins were found guilty on the charges of kidnapping and conspiracy to a kidnapping. They are scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 21.

Throughout the trial, the defense argued that any dispute between the Jenkinses and Pennington was over a drug deal gone sour.

Andrew Stephens, the attorney for David Jason Jenkins, argued that his client had at least 21 beers on the day of the assault and was too drunk to have formulated a plan for such an attack.

“These people who were stoned and drunk were going to form a plan? When this event took place, they were all about drugs,” Stephens said.

Coffee argued that Anthony Jenkins has an IQ of roughly 75 and was merely a follower who does not hate gay people. He called the allegations “the nearest thing to nothing I have ever seen.”

Coffey said Pennington pushed the idea that he was attacked for being gay to serve his own political agenda. Coffey invoked the name of President Barack Obama, who is unpopular in Kentucky and lost badly in the state four years ago.

“If the government and President Obama want to bow to the special-interest groups, that's their business, but they picked the wrong case,” Coffey said.

U.S. Justice Department civil rights attorney AeJean Cha told jurors that the Jenkins cousins and two women planned to kidnap, beat and kill Pennington because of his sexual orientation.

“This is not about drugs, this is about the fact that Kevin is gay,” Cha said.

Hawkins also played a tape of Pennington's 911 call after the attack. On the tape, Pennington's voice can be heard cracking as he tries to describe the attack and relay information about the Jenkinses.

“They're trying to kill me,” Pennington told the 911 operator on April 4, 2011. “I didn't know what they were going to do. I think it's because I'm gay.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me