A New Jersey man sobbed tears of joy yesterday after a Bermuda jury of seven men and five women acquitted him of sexually assaulting another American visitor after a night of drinking in April.

"I thank the people of Bermuda for giving me a fair trial. Justice did prevail," the 38-year-old man said. The man ? who cannot be named for legal reasons ? spent some 45 days since he was arrested on April 3 in Police custody and on remand at Westgate Correctional Facility. It is understood he has been on bail since the trial began last week.

His lawyer, Richard Horseman added: "I know my client is thankful to be going home to his family. It's been a long, arduous ordeal for him and we are grateful to the people of Bermuda for a fair trial."

Earlier, he told the jury: "It is you who stand on behalf of the people of Bermuda. This man is charged with one of the most heinous crimes you can be accused of as a man... The last thing we want is for an innocent man to go to jail. There's only two people that know what happened in those early morning hours on the third of April."

Mr. Horseman repeated to the jury that alcohol was a factor in the incident and had impaired the victim's memory.

He summarised the victim's testimony where she said that she was asleep in her bed when the defendant allegedly came on top of her and penetrated her.

"How could you get away with that?" Mr. Horseman asked. "That would be the dumbest rapist on the planet."

The incident occurred on April 3, 2005 after a night of drinking at the Swizzle Inn and The Beach bar, he introduced himself to a group of women and was invited for more drinks at a private home.

The Florida woman claimed that she awoke to the man defendant thrusting inside of her while the defendant said the victim initiated intercourse but was too intoxicated to be in control.

Mr. Horseman pointed out that if the defendant had raped the alleged victim he would not have sat around with others in the apartment and have a cigarette.

He also brought up the fact that there were no bruises or tears in the victim's vaginal area and suggested the victim felt used and that is the reason she called it assault.

"This man took off her panties, (and) went in hard, thrusting? There would have been something," he added.

He said that the defendant had never been inconsistent when explaining what happened, adding: "The court has no evidence to support the story of (the alleged victim)."

Crown Counsel Paula Tyndale began her argument by telling the jury that just because the defendant spoke "openly and loudly" during his testimony, that does not mean that he was speaking the truth. She said that the defendant is "someone who will go off and head you in another direction without answering the question".

Ms Tyndale pointed out that none of their friends had seen the victim flirting, fondling his groin area or heard her moaning in his ear ? as he claimed.

"I would say to you that is there was any crotch grabbing and moaning going on someone would remember," she said.

Turning to the man's claims of being struck by conscience about his infidelity, Ms Tyndale said the defendant never mentioned his wife to anyone at the house nor to the Police when he was arrested.

She suggested that the defendant had tried to come across as a perfect gentleman when in fact he is not, adding he is not an "honourable man of virtue".

Ms Tyndale asked the jury to forgive the victim for not remembering all of the details. "The defendant would have you believe that she is mad because he did not satisfy her," she said, adding: "Does she look like the type of person who would create this terrible lie?"

"It's almost appears that he's walking out like 'la-la-la'. He didn't come out of that room with any remorse from cheating on his wife.

"The crown is submitting to you that the defendant gave a startling performance, the prosecutor said. "But that's all it was, a performance."

In closing, Ms Tyndale said: "The integrity of this nation is in question. The law of Bermuda applies equally to Bermudians and to visitors."

Puisne Justice Ian Kawaley gave his summation to the jury and urged them to make their decision based on just the facts.

He told the jury that the defendant did not have to prove his innocence but the prosecution had to prove his guilt.

When the jury announced the verdict, Mr. Justice Kawaley said to the defendant: "The jury have treated you fairly. Under our legal system you've been given the benefit of the doubt. You're free to go."