The Sex Trial of Gina Purvis

(Spring Valley, Illinois) The trial of former Hall High School biology teacher Gina Purvis, 29, is underway -- finally. The year-long back and forth legal maneuverings have come to fruition with a bench trial before Circuit Court Judge Chris H. Ryan. Purvis faces four counts of criminal sexual assault for allegedly having sexual relations with a 15-year-old student in the spring of 2004.


Gina M. Purvis
(Photo - Gonzo)
In the court room, the defense has been trying to build a convincing case that the 15-year-old male victim is a liar. Purvis' attorney Steven Glink of Naperville has cited inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

Based upon his investigation of the case, Spring Valley Police Chief Doug Bernabei testified in support of the victim's version of events. The prosecution has also presented testimony that Purvis confided that she was dissatisfied with her marriage and had told a cousin of the boy that he was "good in bed."

The trial continues. More later ...


[Update 11/01/05]

Gina Purvis has been found NOT GUILTY.

Circuit Court Judge Chris H. Ryan, who presided at the bench trial, said he did not think the boy was a truthful witness, ultimately unraveling the prosecution's case, which relied heavily on the boy's testimony.

Ryan said he had suspicions after the boy repeatedly said he couldn't remember or recall details to answer many of the defense's questions.

"The truth is very easy to remember," Ryan said. "Believe me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. It's obvious someone didn't want to get caught up in details."

State's Attorney Pat Herrmann said that in his 24 years of trying criminal sex cases, he has never had more corroboration of witnesses' testimony.

During closing arguments, Herrmann mentioned evidence of a romantic relationship, including gifts and telephone records indicating Purvis and the boy talked for more than 2,000 minutes in February and March of 2004.

The defense argued the two spent time together because Purvis was mentoring the boy. Defense attorney Steven Glink argued testimony from the prosecution's witnesses was inconsistent, and therefore unbelievable.

Glink repeatedly said the boy was a liar who got caught spreading very serious rumors.

Judge Ryan didn't believe the boy nor did he believe the defense witnesses. He did believe there was a close, inappropriate relationship but indicated, "That doesn't necessarily mean a sexual relationship occurred."