PICKENS — It took one hour and 27 minutes for Micah Rogers’ defensive attorney, Franks Eppes, to tell the 12-person jury why the 20-year old was not guilty on Thursday at the Pickens County Courthouse, while it took Assistant Solicitor Baker Cleveland about a half hour to tell them why he was.

Rogers, 20, is charged with vandalizing Howard’s Rock on June 2, 2013. He has been charged with grand larceny of value over $10,000 and malicious damage to property. After three days of witness testimony and listening to final arguments on Thursday, the jury was instructed to give either a guilty verdict of $10,000 or more to the grand larceny charge or a not guilty verdict, while they are to give three verdicts when it comes to the malicious injury to property charge. It can be guilty of injury $10,000 or more, guilty of injury $10,000 or less, or not guilty.

In his final argument, Eppes centered on the credibility of the prosecution’s key witness, Xavia Winn. He said Winn’s testimony did not go with the previous two statements Rogers’ childhood friend gave to police about the incident. He also pointed out that Winn’s testimony did not match that of the video from the night in question, which shows Rogers and Winn, along with another friend, A.J. Gainey, pulling up in Rogers’ truck, getting out and walking towards Howard’s Rock.

About three-and-half minutes later, you can see Rogers walking towards the Scroll of Honor, which is across the street from Howard’s Rock.

Winn’s testimony said he saw Rogers’ go back to his truck, which is when the prosecution believes he had enough time to get something out of his truck, possibly a hammer or chisel. However, a surveillance video taken from the South Stands show that no one came back to the truck after the three men first approached Howard’s Rock. Eppes also pointed out that Winn did not ever see Rogers with an instrument used to break the rock or with any evidence showing he had any possession of the rock.

Eppes also tried to discredit Winn’s testimony by pointing out several difference in his stories, from the first time he spoke with investigators to the second one and then on the witness stand after he had seen the surveillance video.

One example was what he said about the shorts he was wearing the night of the incident. Winn believed he was wearing cargo shorts, but Eppes later proved, through Rogers’ mother and photos taken that same night showing Rogers was wearing regular golf shorts that had just two pockets.

Eppes also pointed out that Rogers’ fingerprints were never found at the crime scene.

But Cleveland came back in his final argument and pointed out that Eppes’ one hour and 27-minute argument was a “spitball defense” used to try and distract the jury of what the state believes is enough evidence to prove Rogers’ did vandalize Howard’s Rock.

He said Rogers was “an obsessed Clemson fan that got a piece of the rock.” He said the state did not have to give play-by-play of the witness’ testimony or the video to prove Rogers’ vandalized Howard’s Rock.

“We have Mr. Rogers bragging and dancing,” Cleveland said.

Cleveland also pointed to the fact Rogers lied to investigators in his statement when he told them he did not use any tools in his job, he works for his father’s masonry business, that could be used to remove something like Howard’s Rock.

But when investigators got a warrant to look in Rogers’ truck, they found hammers, screw drivers and such that could have been used to commit such a crime.

Cleveland also pointed out, through Winn’s statements, that Winn, Gainey and Rogers went to Pickens on the day they talked with investigators with the intent to cover up what happened and protect Rogers.

“(Winn’s) conscience got the better of him,” Cleveland said.

Now Rogers has to wait and see what the jury will decide.