The trial of Joseph Andrew Bassett, age 47, with address listed at 4848 Piney Fork, Pine Grove, West Virginia, commenced at 9:03 AM on the morning of Tuesday, January 17, 2023, in the second floor courtroom of the Marshall County Courthouse in Moundsville, WV, with the Honorable Judge Jeffrey D. Cramer, Chief Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit, presiding.

Mr. Bassett was represented by Attorney Kevin Neiswonger of the Moundsville law firm of Neiswonger & White. The State of West Virginia was represented by Wetzel County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy Haught and Wetzel County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Justin Kraft, with Assistant Prosecutor Kraft being the lead prosecutor in the trial.

Difficulties in seating a jury in Wetzel County Circuit Court led to an early September 2022 change of venue to Marshall County, with a scheduled trial date of October 19, 2022. However, scheduling issues in Marshall County led to the October date being vacated with the trial rescheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2023.

Mr. Bassett was indicted by a Wetzel County Grand Jury during the January 2022 term of court on two felony counts: one count of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and one count of Sexual Abuse by a Custodian. Not Guilty pleas were entered at the February 9, 2022, arraignment held in Wetzel County.

Jury selection began at 9:04 AM. Forty Marshall County citizens had been called for jury duty in the matter. Four had been excused by the Circuit Clerk’s office prior to Tuesday morning. Thirty-one citizens appeared in court to fulfill their civic duty and responsibility. Five citizens did not appear. As the Court, Prosecutor Kraft and Defense Attorney Neiswonger conducted the selection process, eleven citizens were thanked by the Court for their service and excused. The requisite number of twenty prospective jurors was attained, with none to spare. The Court remarked that had one less person summoned for jury duty that day not appeared, a jury would not have been able to be seated. The attorneys for both parties then made their peremptory challenges, or strikes, with first the Prosecution striking two and then the Defense six. The Court thanked the excused eight citizens for their service. Jury selection was complete at 11:38 AM and Judge Cramer adjourned the court for a one hour break for lunch.

At 12:48 PM, Judge Cramer took the bench and called the court to order. The Jury was called in from the jury room at 12:51 PM. Prosecutor Kraft delivered his opening statement, providing a summary of the chain of events starting on May 29, 2020, at the Defendant’s home on Piney Fork and the subsequent actions and responses of the alleged victim’s family members and the investigative activities of Law Enforcement. The Prosecutor stated that a fifteen year old child had lost her trust and innocence due to the actions of her uncle on May 29, 2020. The Prosecutor told the Jury that they would hear audio recordings of interviews conducted by Law Enforcement with the Defendant, with those interviews having taken place in the weeks following the alleged abusive actions.

In his opening statement, Defense Attorney Neiswonger emphasized to the Jury that his client, Mr. Bassett, sitting in the courtroom before them, was innocent and will remain so unless the State proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney Neiswonger stated to the Jury that the proof must be so strong that all twelve of the jurors find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Neiswonger stated that the allegations of the nature that have been made against Mr. Bassett were the easiest allegations to make in today’s society. Attorney Neiswonger provided a summary of the events of the morning of May 29, 2020, at the Defendant’s home, including the calling of wild turkeys from the front porch, horseplay and pillow fights in the interior of the home, and the preparation and partaking of the breakfast meal. Attorney Neiswonger alluded to the aggressive posture of Law Enforcement in the second of two interviews with Mr. Bassett, and Attorney Neiswonger spoke of the voluntary participation on the part of Mr. Bassett in those interviews.

At approximately 1:15 PM, Prosecutor Kraft called the State’s first witness to testify. The witness identified as a parent of the alleged victim, and under either direct examination by Prosecutor Kraft or cross examination by Attorney Neiswonger, testified that prior to the alleged abuse the Bassett house was considered a safe place for their child. “We trusted each other with our kids,” the witness stated. The witness testified regarding interactions with the Child Advocacy Center following the alleged incident and also regarding the withdrawal from friends and family by their child since the alleged incident.

At 1:46 PM, Prosecutor Kraft called the State’s second witness, a Wetzel County Deputy Sheriff and the lead investigator in the matter. The Deputy testified that he initially interviewed Mr. Bassett at the Byrd Center in Pine Grove and with a second interview conducted approximately two weeks later at the New Martinsville Police Department and with the assistance of a West Virginia State Policeman. Prosecutor Kraft introduced State’s Exhibits #1, #2, #3, and #4, with #1 being a Waiver of Miranda Rights, and the remaining three exhibits being electronic recordings and transcripts of the two interviews. The recordings of the two interviews were played in the courtroom.

Under cross examination, Attorney Neiswonger inquired of the Deputy if the Deputy had interviewed any other people in the house at the time of the alleged incident, if the Deputy had entered the house and looked around, and if the Deputy had taken any photographs of the house. The Deputy responded in the negative to all the queries.

At 3:17 PM, Judge Cramer called for a ten minute recess. At 3:31, court reconvened. Prosecutor Kraft called the alleged victim to the witness chair. The witness stated that the day of the alleged incident was a day she would like to forget, but can’t. She described the day as a day of fear. She described the house as a place she thought was safe to go. She described the alleged act of abuse. She stated she has changed significantly and has sought counseling. When asked by Prosecutor Kraft what was the one thing she would remember from this, the answer was that you can’t really trust anybody.

Under cross examination, Defense Attorney Neiswonger introduced Defense Exhibits #1, #2, and #3, all three being photographs of the interior of the Bassett home on Piney Fork. Attorney Neiswonger asked the witness to review the photographs and then questioned the witness regarding approximate dimensions of the home’s interior and what parts of the house may or may not be seen from various vantage points; in example, can the interior of a specific bedroom be observed from the kitchen.

Prosecutor Kraft moved to introduce State’s Exhibit #5, which was the content of the alleged victim’s handwritten statement provided to the Deputy but had been rewritten by the Deputy. Defense Attorney Neiswonger objected to the admission of the exhibit on the grounds of improper authentication. The Court sustained Attorney Neiswonger’s objection.

Judge Cramer adjourned court at 4:42 PM and set 8:45 AM on the next day, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, to reconvene.

At 8:58 AM the following morning, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, Judge Cramer entered the courtroom from the door directly behind the bench and called Court to order. Prosecutor Kraft announced that the State rests. Defense Neiswonger tendered two motions to the Court: the first that Mr. Bassett doesn’t meet the definition of Custodian in the matter, and the second that no evidence had been introduced that any touching was done for the purpose of sexual gratification. Prosecutor Kraft disputed both of Attorney Neiswonger’s motions and the positions therein. The Court denied both motions.

At 9:10 AM, the Court spoke to Mr. Bassett, stating to Mr. Bassett that the time had come for him to determine if he was going to testify.

At 9:16, the Jury was brought into the courtroom. At 9:17, the Court provided for the Prosecution to rest in the presence of the Jury.

Defense Attorney Neiswonger called as the Defense’s first two witnesses family members of the Bassett household. Under direct examination, Attorney Neiswonger questioned the witnesses regarding the activities in and outside of the Piney Fork home of the morning of May 29, 2020, with emphasis on who was present and what sections of the home interior may be viewed from various vantage points within the home. The Defense’s three exhibits were attested to. On cross examination, Prosecutor Kraft focused on ownership of the home and the issue of guardianship of the young people present on May 29, 2020.

At 10:00 AM, the Defendant, Joseph Andrew Bassett, took the stand. Throughout direct and cross examination by both attorneys, Mr. Bassett maintained his innocence.

At 10:21, the Defense rested. The Jury was returned to the jury room. For the next hour, there occurred a sequence of recesses from and reconvening to court as Judge Cramer and the attorneys addressed the elements and details of the Jury’s Instructions, the Charging Documents, and the Verdict Forms. Although Prosecutor Kraft had conducted the prosecution of the trial, both Prosecutors Tim Haught and Justin Kraft had conferred frequently during the trial. Prosecutor Haught had kept his direct interaction with the Court infrequent during the trial, but did participate in all sidebar conferences held at the bench. During the hour of recesses and reconvening to prepare documents, Prosecutor Haught requested of the Court that no reference to the punishments associated with the alleged crimes be permitted during closing arguments. The Court so granted.

At 11:18, the documents were complete. The Jury was returned to the courtroom at 11:21 AM and Judge Cramer gave the Jury their instructions. The Judge told the Jury that the Court determines the law and the Jury determines the facts. The Judge told the Jury that each instruction is as important as any other and it is the Jury’s job to judge the evidence. The Judge reiterated to the Jury the counts of the Indictment: count one being Sexual Abuse in the First Degree; count two being Sexual Abuse by a Custodian. Additionally, the Judge told the Jury that if they had any questions during their deliberations, those questions were to be reduced to writing and given to the Bailiff, and the Bailiff would deliver their written questions to the Judge.

At 11:50, Prosecutor Kraft delivered his first closing remarks. “Now is the time for you to consider the evidence,” the Prosecutor said. The Prosecutor stated that the alleged victim has no reason to lie.

At 12:00 noon, Defense Attorney Neiswonger delivered his closing remarks. “Such a charge is the easiest charge to make,” Attorney Neiswonger said. Attorney Neiswonger spoke of what he considered the incompleteness of the State’s investigation. He stated that it is the Jury’s job to determine if the State of West Virginia has proven Mr. Bassett’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney Neiswonger maintained that there were inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony. Attorney Neiswonger said Mr. Bassett is a farmer and construction worker and may not have the right words and expressive powers, and has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

At 12:18 PM, Prosecutor Kraft delivered his closing rebuttal. Prosecutor Kraft stated that the alleged victim was not confused, but rather was clear, in her testimony. Prosecutor Kraft spoke of trust and the alleged victim’s loss of trust and asked, “What motive is there for her to put herself in this courtroom and testify in front of all these people?”

At 12:25, the Jury was directed to the Jury room, which is adjacent to the courtroom, to begin their deliberations. The courtroom was cleared of all persons except the essential clerks and bailiffs.

The Jury did not go to lunch but rather stayed at their task and ordered food in. Several times during the next few hours the Jury, by way of the Bailiff, submitted written questions to the Court. The attorneys and the Defendant would be summoned to the courtroom to participate in the drafting of replies to those written queries.

Slightly after 6:30 PM, it was announced that a verdict had been reached. The courtroom was reopened. The Jury returned to the jury box. When asked by the Judge if a verdict had been reached, the Jury Foreperson replied in the affirmative. The Bailiff received the sealed Verdict Form from the Foreperson and delivered it to the Judge. The Judge opened the form and handed it to the Clerk with instructions to read the verdict aloud. The Clerk did so. The verdict for both counts was guilty. Defense Attorney Neiswonger requested the Jury be polled. The Court so ordered and the verdicts were confirmed. The Judge thanked the jurors for their service and excused them. The Judge stated that post trial motions would be accepted and reviewed promptly. A pre-sentencing investigation was ordered. The Judge ordered Mr. Bassett remanded. Court was adjourned.

Three Marshall County Sheriff’s Deputies secured Mr. Bassett, escorted him from the courtroom and the building, and transported him to the Northern Regional Jail.