RALPH WILSON/Sun-Gazette Correspondent Former Williamsport Area High School principal Roger Freed, left, arrives at Magistrate Christian Frey's courtroom accompanied by his lawyer, for a preliminary hearing in Williamsport on Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2022. Freed was found not guilty of several counts of institutional sexual assault and count of corruption of minors Thursday night.

Roger Weaver Freed, the former Williamsport High School principal accused of carrying on a sexual relationship with a student was found not guilty of 25 counts of institutional sexual assault, and one count of corruption of minors by a jury in the courtroom of Judge Eric Linhardt Thursday evening, following a four day trial.

Just before 7 p.m. the jury asked for instruction on whether they could find Freed guilty of corruption of minors if they did not find him guilty of institutional sex assault.

Linhardt told the jury they could not have a finding of one without the other.

By 8:30 p.m., the jury reported that it was deadlocked.

Linhardt instructed them to return for continued deliberations and to report any further delays or decisions.

Less than half an hour later, the jury returned their verdict.

Freed and family members could be seen sobbing as the not guilty verdicts were announced.

The day began with the prosecution resting its case, and the defense following suit without offering any witnesses or testimony on its behalf. Freed made his intentions not to testify known at the start of the proceedings.

“The evidence shown in this case proves that the alleged victim lied about his relationship with Roger Freed in order to get out of his own charges, which included rape of a child,” defense attorney David Lampman said at the outset of his nearly two-hour-long closing statement.

“Freed knew the truth about the allegations and he was the key piece in making them go away,” Lampman said while replaying a series of jailhouse calls between the accuser and his then-boyfriend.

“Its absolutely stunning how it worked out for him,” Lampman said, stating that the District Attorney’s office overlooked all of the lies and inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story because he provided them with a “bigger fish.”

“Freed was not a monster until 2022, when the alleged victim was facing his own charges for rape of a child,” he stressed, rehashing the fact that his bail had been reduced and charges ultimately dropped shortly after coming forward with his allegations against Freed, Lampman said.

“That’s the motive to fabricate the allegations,” he said.

Though former Assistant District Attorney, turned Deputy Public Defender Matthew Welickovitch earlier testified that no deal was offered to the accuser in exchange for his testimony, Lampman stressed that a material witness warrant could have been filed to compel the alleged victim of the former student’s crimes.

“I could bring a body in, but I wouldn’t be able to force them to testify,” Welickovitch countered during his testimony Wednesday.

“The commonwealth did not present a single piece of physical evidence,” Lampman stressed.

Though the alleged victim stated that he was in constant contact with Freed, even stating that they had exchanged nude photos at one point, no text messages, emails, phone records or Snapchat messages were ever introduced by the commonwealth, Lampman told the jury.

“That lack of physical evidence is telling,” he said.

Much of Lampman’s argument centered on a white iPhone turned over to authorities by the accuser in an effort to gain corroborating evidence.

The phone, through account information and voicemails extracted from it revealed that it had, at least at one point, belonged to the alleged victim’s grandmother.

Lampman posited that the accuser had turned that phone in because he knew turning his own phone over would yield evidence that only strengthened Freed’s case.

If Freed was so concerned about his conduct being learned by the public, why would he interact with the alleged victim in extremely public settings, such as going out to restaurants and driving lessons around town, Lampman argued.

Evidence offered by the commonwealth including a text exchange in which the accuser, post-graduation, was seeking relationship advice from Freed that showed him having intimate knowledge of what the alleged victim enjoyed sexually was only introduced in order to embarrass Freed, Lampman argued.

He also stressed the fact that the two stayed in touch after high school, with many of their interactions initiated by the alleged victim, including an invitation to visit at his Pittsburgh apartment.

“The alleged victim admits he has a bad memory and at times throughout his life, has had trouble telling the truth,” Lampman told the jury, zeroing in on his testimony that Freed had unzipped a pair of off-brand compression shorts during their first sexual encounter, while stressing that the existence of such shorts remains unproven.

“Why does a story keep changing? Because it’s not the truth,” he told the jury.

Doubling back to a police-assisted secret recording made by the alleged victim, Lampman stressed statements made indicating that he was owed an apology by the accuser’s mom, who had recently confronted Freed about his alleged abuse of her son.

He also pointed to several long pauses the accuser would take between being asked a question and giving his response, many of which consisted of “I don’t know.”

“What was he doing? He was thinking of what was the best answer to follow through with his web of lies,” Lampman told the jury.

Lampman also highlighted the testimony of Dr. Brandon Pardoe, Williamsport High School’s Director of Student Services, whom Freed met with immediately following the call from the accuser’s mother.

Though Pardoe was called as a witness for the prosecution, he testified that Freed was often at after-school events, sometimes when not assigned.

He further stated that he would often visit Freed’s office, which was in a very visible location, many times unannounced.

Calling the accuser’s words, “worthless,” Lampman told the jury that his changing timeline could not be relied on to convict Freed.

“One of the deepest, darkest things you can do to a human being is to accuse them of sexual assault. The alleged victim was willing to do anything to make his own charges go away,” he said.

“He lies when it suits him,” Lampman told the jury.

“I view that statement the opposite way around,” First Assistant District Attorney Martin Wade told the jury at the beginning of his closing statement.

In stark contrast to Lampman’s drawn out revisiting of the case, Wade focused on two specific events, the trip to Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and Freed’s first interview with state trooper Matthew Miller.

“During the interview, Freed admitted to everything, but the sexual encounter and the wine. The two things he knew could get him in trouble,” Wade said.

He also pointed to a statement during the interview in which Freed said he had never done anything sexually with the alleged victim while in school “on purpose.”

“I don’t know what that means, but it sounds like a Fruedian slip,” he told the jury.

“He’s the soon-to-be high school principal and he’s lying to the police,” Wade stressed, noting that Freed denied having a sexual relationship with the student post-graduation until more than two hours into the interview.

Calling Freed’s arrogance during the interview staggering, Wade stressed that Freed showed no shame or regret during the interrogation.

The Duquesne trip is key, Wade said, calling it a “date,” as he did a visit to the alleged victim’s grandmother’s house just weeks after graduation.

Wade also reiterated that Freed had lied about receiving the accuser’s mother’s permission to take him on the trip.

Evidence introduced of Freed transferring money to the alleged victim on several occasions after he graduated was likely done in order to keep him quiet, Wade said.

“Roger Freed is the very definition of a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Wade said.

“Instead of caring for those he was in charge of, he pursued a romantic relationship with a student, grooming him under the guise of mentorship,” he told the jury, labeling their outings as “dates.”

“This calls into question his entire body of work, and calls into question his interactions with his previous male students,” Wade said.

“This was a carefully chosen career path, chosen in order to put him in close contact with teenage boys,” the District Attorney told the jury.

“Roger Freed was living a lie. His dishonesty was by necessity,” Wade said.

“I said in my opening statement that if this was a teenage girl sharing a hotel room with a high school principal, that it would easily be believed that a sexual relationship had already occurred. That inference should be the same when it’s two males,” Wade told the jury.