MANASSAS, Va. -- Prosecutors and defense lawyers, their jobs done, shook hands and smiled. But Lorena Bobbitt, on trial for slicing off her husband's penis, trembled and sobbed as the five men and seven women filed out of courtroom Thursday.
Today, the jury will consider seven days of testimony from more than 40 witnesses who recounted explicit details of John and Lorena Bobbitt's failed four-year marriage and troubled sexual relationship.
Lorena Bobbitt faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Although both the defense and prosecution in Lorena's trial agree she was raped and abused by her husband during their marriage, John Bobbitt, 26, was acquitted in November of marital sexual assault.
Lorena Bobbitt's defense team argued that John Bobbitt came home after a night of drinking June 23 and raped her. They said she was acting in self-defense when she cut her husband, overcome by an "irresistible impulse" and a fit of mental illness as she sought to stop his repeated rapes.
Defense lawyer Blair Howard told the jury in closing arguments that Lorena, 24, was "a good girl. The evidence is compelling. The evidence is overwhelming," he said. "This girl was crumbling. She was falling to pieces."
But prosecutor Paul Ebert argued that she was seeking vengeance.
He told the jurors that it would be wrong to condone Lorena Bobbitt's "taking the law into her own hands. It's sad, but we're here on a criminal matter. Two wrongs don't make a right."
Ebert's decision to prosecute both John Bobbitt in his trial and now Lorena may affect the jury's views. Howard said the prosecution is "walking both sides of the street."
Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, agrees: "The prosecutor hasn't decided yet who to believe," Rothstein says. "I think that will hurt him."
Massive media attention and the throng of supporters who chanted "Lorena! Lorena!" outside the courtroom each day will be on the minds of jurors, despite instructions to ignore both, he said.
"The most likely thing is that their sympathetic view of her condition will influence them to give her a light conviction," Rothstein says.
If Bobbitt is found guilty of either malicious wounding or unlawful wounding, she would be deported after serving her sentence.
But friends say Lorena Bobbitt plans to return to her home in Venezuela if she's cleared.
To acquit Lorena Bobbitt, the jury must find that she did not act maliciously, but out of an "irresistible impulse."
Ebert reminded jurors that such an impulse would mean she could have attacked "friend or foe" and would have cut her husband "even if a police officer was at her side."
"I pray to God that the jury does the right thing," says Evelyn Smith, a friend of Lorena's who was acquitted of killing her abusive husband. "She's so frightened."
After the lawyers congratulated each other on the end of the case, defense lawyer Lisa Kemler noticed Lorena crying and tried to comfort her, putting an arm around her client and offering a tissue.
Soon, a courier carried in flowers and a huge teddy bear sent by some of Lorena's supporters. And, as she left the courthouse through a sea of reporters and photographers, Lorena Bobbitt smiled and flashed a victory sign at the cheering crowd.
JURY'S OPTIONS
The jury in Lorena Bobbitt's malicious wounding trial has three options. It can find her:
Guilty of malicious wounding. Jury can decide she injured John Bobbitt with intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, and that the act was done with malice. Penalty: five to 20 years in prison and up to $ 100,000 fine.
Guilty of unlawful wounding. Jury can decide she injured Bobbitt with the same intent, but without malice. Penalty: one to five years in prison or up to 12 months in jail, and up to $ 2,500 fine.
Innocent. Jury can decide she acted in self-defense, believing she was in danger of great bodily harm and in peril of attack. Or jury can decide her mind was so impaired she couldn't resist an impulse to commit the crime.
