SAN JOSE
– A jury of eight women and four men is deliberating today
whether they believe – beyond a reasonable doubt – Gilroy doctor
Raul Ixtlahuac sexually molested five of his gynecological patients
in fall 2000.
SAN JOSE – A jury of eight women and four men is deliberating today whether they believe – beyond a reasonable doubt – Gilroy doctor Raul Ixtlahuac sexually molested five of his gynecological patients in fall 2000.
The last time this case came to trial, in March, a different jury (of the same gender makeup) deadlocked after five days of deliberation. That prompted this retrial, which began Oct. 6.
Ixtlahuac (ISHT-la-wok), 42, faces four counts of unlawful sexual penetration and one count of sexual battery. Four women say he had sexual intercourse with them during pelvic exams as they lay with their feet up in stirrups and their view obscured by a drape. One woman claims Ixtlahuac rubbed her clitoris sexually during such an exam. If convicted, Ixtlahuac could face more then a decade in prison and lose his medical license. If acquitted, he could return to family practice.
Jurors on Monday heard closing arguments from prosecution attorney Chuck Gillingham and defense attorney Doron Weinberg.
Defense deconstructs accusations
Gillingham said the five women know what they felt and have no reason to lie. Three had been to Ixtlahuac many times before and knew what his exams were supposed to feel like.
“This individual committed monstrous acts against five women,” Gillingham told the jury. “(Don’t) pat them on the head and say, ‘Sorry, thanks for coming.’ Provide some closure for them.”
Weinberg insisted the women were not dishonest – just mistaken. Three of them had medical circumstances that would have made them feel things differently in their vaginas, he said, citing the testimony of gynecological expert witness Dr. Risa Kagan.
Gillingham rebutted that, in Kagan’s words, women in these situations might feel pain, but Kagan made no mention of sexual responses.
Weinberg concluded that a fourth claimant, Georgette, fabricated her story, as there was no medical record to support that she had a gynecological exam in November 2000, as she claimed.
As for Denise, who said Ixtlahuac rubbed her clitoris, Weinberg said this was an inadvertent touch and told the jury there is no evidence to prove it was intentional.
Weinberg also pointed out changes in the women’s stories between what they first told police and what they said in court. Evelyn, for instance, changed the date of the alleged sexual assault from Sept. 22, 2000, to Aug. 18, and Georgette first claimed she had only a pelvic exam but later added a breast exam.
Weinberg also noted nurse Mary Fierro’s testimony that she was present during one of the questionable exams and saw nothing unusual. The alleged victim, Stacee, says no nurse was there. Stacee, however, was coming out of shock brought on by a severe allergic reaction to latex, the defense contends.
Weinberg asserted that the women were initially confused but became more certain as police and prosecutors convinced them they were victims of sexual abuse.
“What (these women) really started off saying is that they experienced an unusual or uncomfortable episode,” Weinberg said. “What they tell you here, what they believe they feel, is more a product of what’s been learned than what happened at the time.”
The condom
If there is a proverbial “smoking gun” in this case, it’s a condom a woman named Miquela said she found in the exam room trash can after her alleged sexual assault. A nurse, Denise Martinez, testified she also saw the condom. No one ever found it afterward, but Martinez said she saw Ixtlahuac rummaging through the exam room trash right after she saw the condom – although at another time she told police the door was closed.
Weinberg said Miquela must have seen one of Ixtlahuac’s latex gloves instead. Although Martinez testified that what she saw was not a glove, Weinberg said she admittedly only “glanced” in the trash and may have mistaken a plastic wrapper for a condom. Gillingham, however, held up the items police took from the trash can as evidence, saying there was no such wrapper.
Weinberg pointed out, however, that Martinez had changed her story about seeing Ixtlahauc rummage in the trash, that there was reportedly no semen in the condom – nor any report of a condom wrapper. Why would Ixtlahuac walk around with an unwrapped condom in his pocket, and why would he put his penis in a woman and not have an orgasm, Weinberg asked.
Would he? Could he?
Weinberg questioned why a doctor would commit such an act in a crowded medical clinic, running the risk of the patient screaming or a staff member entering the room.
“It’s crazy,” Weinberg said.
Gillingham countered that Ixtlahuac gained a feeling of power from getting away with surreptitious sexual acts.
Weinberg went on to explain – with the aid of a display board – that Ixtlahuac is several inches too short (5 feet 9 inches) to have slipped his penis in the women without lying on top of them or leaning over with his hands on the table. The stealthy sex the women say happened is physically impossible for a man of his stature, Weinberg said.
Gillingham countered by saying Ixtlahuac could have achieved the necessary height by wearing shoes with heels as high as an inch-and-a-half and standing on a step at the foot of the table.
Ixtlahuac’s wife and mother (who have attended the trial daily) were there to support him Monday along with his sister, father-in-law and two brothers-in-law. Three Kaiser Permanente staff members sat near the family; one of them, Senior Legal Counsel Gary Dulberg, said they were there in support of their doctor.
Ixtlahuac’s ex-wife, to whom he was married when the alleged incidents occurred, also was present but declined comment.
