Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fairfax Naked Guy -- Not Guilty

A Fairfax County Circuit Court jury took less than 20 minutes Wednesday to find Erick Williamson, "The Naked Guy," not guilty of indecent exposure, for standing nude inside his Springfield house last fall.

"It's a weight off my shoulders," Williamson said of the verdict, which was an appeal of his misdemeanor conviction by a judge in Fairfax General District Court. "I think it sets the record straight. It was an innocent action."

The appeal trial for The Naked Guy, Erick Williamson, got underway in Fairfax County Circuit Court on Wednesday, after Williamson appealed his conviction for indecent exposure while inside his Springfield house last fall.

Though Fairfax prosecutors limited their case strictly to the two women who say they saw Williamson, 29, standing naked at the door to his carport on Oct. 19, one new detail did emerge today: Yvette Dean, who testified she was walking her 7-year-old son to school that fateful morning, said that when she spotted Williamson posing in the doorway, "I flipped him off."

Dean said Williamson was holding his storm door open with one hand, and making eye contact with her. She said she moved to cover her son's eyes with her overcoat, then turned the corner and walked past the house.

And there was Williamson again, now standing in the front window, Dean said. She did not make a second obscene gesture at him.

The concept of obscenity is at the heart of the case, which went to the seven-person jury shortly before 3 p.m. Did Williamson intentionally display himself, both to Dean and to another woman who drove past the house and saw Williamson at 6:40 a.m. that same morning? Or was he simply moving about the house, admittedly unclothed, packing, eating breakfast and getting ready to move, as he testified.

Williamson said he never stood in the carport doorway, and that he never intended to expose himself to anyone. He said if he had realized anyone was out there, he would have covered up and apologized to the passers-by.

The other major detail to emerge today was that Williamson's lawyers hired a private investigator to measure the distance from where Dean was standing to the carport door. Investigator John Hickey said it was 83 feet. A photo taken by the police, of the view from the path that Dean was on looking toward the house on Arley Drive, made it seem like quite a distance, and Dean said the photo was "closer than I was."

Defense lawyer Dickson Young presented another photo taken from the path, and the carport door seemed very distant. Young ridiculed the notion that Dean made eye contact with the naked man.

If a woman is "walking along and sees someone naked," Young told the jury in his closing argument, "the last thing they're going to be looking at is his eyes."

Fairfax Assistant Commonwealthl's Attorney Marc J. Birnbaum told the jury that two episodes of exposure in one morning, about two hours apart, was not inadvertent. "This isn't a case about being naked in your own home," Birnbaum said. "This is a case of intentional exposure, and that is a violation of law."

The jury began its deliberations at 2:55 p.m.

Though they were available to be called as witnesses, the police officers who responded to the two exposure reports, and who entered Williamson's rented house without a warrant, did not testify and those issues were not raised.

After Williamson had a misdemeanor trial in general district court in December, he appealed his guilty verdict to circuit court. There were then three pre-trial hearings on motions filed by the defense. Young said Williamson's legal bills would probably wind up being between $10,000 and $15,000.

-- Tom Jackman

By Tom Jackman  |  April 7, 2010; 4:28 PM ET
Categories:  Fairfax , From the Courthouse , Tom Jackman , Updates  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Trial of inmate charged with killing cellmate while serving Montgomery sentence moved
Next: Two St. Albans students charged after BB gun incident


hahahahaha, The Naked Guy Erick Williamson. He will be forever known as "The Naked Guy".

Posted by: Bigfoot_has_a_posse | April 7, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Another story about religious rednecks in Virginia. At least the naked guy won.

Posted by: kenk3 | April 7, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the jury found him not guilty. But what a cost to his reputation, his name and his wallet!

Posted by: cfow1 | April 7, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

"Though they were available to be called as witnesses, the police officers who responded to the two exposure reports, and who entered Williamson's rented house without a warrant, did not testify and those issues were not raised."

This should be addressed next now that Mr. Williamson has been acquitted; cops entering someone's home hours after the incident without a warrant, when no one's life is in danger, is a slap in the face to every citizen's Constitutional rights. Time for a civil suit, Mr. Williamson.

Posted by: pswift00 | April 7, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

pswift00, if he didn't call them, he's waived the issue. He might as well have invited the cops in himself.

Posted by: jiji1 | April 7, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Not quilty in less than 20 minutes. FINALLY, COMMON SENSE WINS!

Posted by: Jimof1913 | April 7, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

If I had a dime for everytime I walked te house nekkid...

Posted by: Homemom | April 7, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The article left out one very important detail. The woman who was cutting through his yard was the wife of a fairfax county cop. Happy that it was dismissed. Hope he leaves the county cause the cops are probably very angry.

Posted by: nichellieagee | April 7, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

He REALLY needs to sue ffx. county for entering his home without a warrant.
If I live in that county I'ld contact my supervisor and complain about the egregious behavior of the ffx. county officers who appear to have violated his constitutional rights!

Posted by: ANONS | April 7, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like they liked him better than the witness/victim and it was a he said/she said without physical evidence. I believe the woman. And you can look at the eyes and not just the "private" as this defense attorney suggested. You will notice many things with a flasher. I had a flasher in my front yard and noticed a lot of details, including even the bounce to his step, his shirt color, color hair, height, etc. I believe the guy knew exactly what he was doing and was playing the system by doing it from inside of his house. Since he won't be cured by this you can bet he'll be at something again. He's a peeping Tom/flasher who knows how to play the system but he'll find a way to carry on with his addiction.

Posted by: SusanMarie2 | April 7, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Let's not fool ourselves...this guy beat the charge true but any adult naked is aware if his windows are exposed to outside viewing...

You mean to tell me you get out of bed naked, leave the bedroom, enter the living or dining room naked and are not aware your drapes or blinds are not closed??

Nah...this is not his first time, trust me and it won't be the last...he is a compulsive flasher and I say that because even after his first sighting he did nothing to cover the windows and was viewed by another person...twice and no closed drapes????? an accident...yeah!!!!!!

Posted by: pentagon40 | April 7, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

All that matters is that he spent $15,000 on a lawyer. The most expensive day of flashing in history.

Posted by: john_bruckner | April 7, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

1) jij1: You have no idea what you're talking about.

2) nichellieagee suggests one important and one unimportant fact. The fact that she was the wife of an officer is not terribly important. What is interesting is your assertion that she wasn't walking on the street, but across his lawn.

I have no idea whether this is true, but if so, it makes the case more interesting. I assume Williamson isn't going to admit that he saw her in order to testify that she was trespassing and she's not going to admit to trespassing to say that she was way closer than 83 feet.

Posted by: grapoport | April 7, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Studies show flashers move on to other more serious things. Did you know that many rapists start as flashers and peeping Toms and that many murderers start as rapists?

Posted by: SusanMarie2 | April 7, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

The officers need to be arrested and imprisoned for at least 6 months for their criminal behavior. They also need to be charged the thousands of dollars their crimes have cost me and the other taxpayers of Fairfax County.

It was 100% because of the fact that the woman was married to a cop that this became an issue in the first place. It's outrageous that this man had his civil liberties violated (and no, his nudity has nothing to do with it; I'm referring to the fact that his property and person were both violated) just because some perverted, desperate housewife decided to trespass on his property. She should be thrown into prison as well, to be quite honest.

Posted by: rhadamanthus | April 7, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse


The man in question was nude inside the confines of his own house, and was *90 feet* away from the public easement the woman should have been walking along. At that range I doubt many people could even tell a man from a woman.

If anything, the woman trespassing on his property is the criminal, and according to your statistics, she will move on to greater and larger crimes in the near future. If that's your point, I agree, she needs to be thrown into prison now before she commits another sex crime on private citizens in their own homes.

Posted by: rhadamanthus | April 7, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Another story about religious rednecks in Virginia. At least the naked guy won.

Posted by: kenk3 | April 7, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse
*************************************************************************************************Please explain how this incident involves "Religion" or (to use your pejorative term) "rednecks?"

Posted by: | April 8, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

I hope he files suit against the police dept. and wins a huge settlement. This is extremely dangerous and an invasive intrusive act on the privacy of all us by the government. I would drag those women in court via subpoena and make a complaint against them as well. They should mind their own damn business and keep movin instead of peering into other peoples property.

Posted by: ewe2 | April 8, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: ewe2 | April 8, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

This is yet one more perfect example of corrupt municipal judges incapable and unwilling to be impartial. The municipal judge finds defendants guilty and they must spend money filing an appeal. That judge should be fired and reported for unprofessionalism and disregard for the administration of justice.

Posted by: ewe2 | April 8, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

pentagon 40: well said.

The police had reason to believe that someone may have been endangered inside the home when they found a window pane MISSING from a door to his residence...they stated that in a case like that, it is their policy to enter the house to ensure that everyone/everything is o.k. Had something bad happened to this guy inside the house and had they not entered the home the way they did, they would be criticized for NOT having gone in to make sure the guy was o.k. No matter what they do, they can't win... The cops aren't the bad guys here. If the guy noticed that ONE person saw him naked and he really wasn't trying to expose himself, then he should've closed the drapes and gone on about his business inside his home. Truth is he didn't give a damn. Oh, well...we'll wait to see what else he gets in trouble for. Guarantee it's not the first time.

Posted by: AT08 | April 8, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I remember at the time my sense of outrage that the police went so over the top in persecuting this man. It was all about the woman who was the wife of a cop making a big stink, and the cop's colleagues obliging her in her wrath. If the police can learn anything about this case, it should be:

Don't sweat the small stuff. Go after the real criminals in our society.

Posted by: barnesgene | April 8, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Is there a legal defense fund for Erick Williamson?

Posted by: barnesgene | April 8, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

People forget: there was a 7-yo little BOY with the wife of the officer. If anything, the cops are trying to protect other little ones from perverts like this naked guy. Again...if he was innocently walking around naked in his house, he would ensure that nobody, not even kids, could see him through windows. He would have closed his drapes. Period.

In any case, think of putting money toward a better cause. Seriously. The naked guy will be just fine.

Posted by: AT08 | April 8, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for wasting my tax dollars, everyone involved..

Posted by: Crucialitis | April 11, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company