By of the

A jury on Wednesday found fired Milwaukee police officer Ladmarald Cates guilty of violating a woman's civil rights by raping her after he responded to her 911 call in July 2010.

Despite being acquitted on a second count, Cates, 44, faces a maximum penalty of life in prison when he is sentenced April 11. He will likely serve far less time under federal sentencing guidelines.

The victim in the case cried as the verdict was announced. Afterward, she said she was glad her ordeal had ended.

"I really appreciate the federal government helping me," she said. "It means a whole lot to me that I don't have to deal with it anymore, and no other women will have to deal with it. I'm happy he won't hurt anybody else."

The jury deliberated for just three hours. In their split verdict, they found Cates not guilty of using a firearm in a crime of violence. They also found that although Cates committed a rape that qualified as aggravated sexual abuse, it did not result in bodily injury to the victim.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mel Johnson said he was pleased with the outcome.

"We feel like we won the heart of the case," he said. "Of course, we want to win everything, but it was a difficult case."

Defense attorney Bridget Boyle said she and her client accepted the result of the trial process.

"They made a decision that he violated her civil rights, and we accept that," she said. "They obviously didn't believe some of her testimony in regards to the gun and decided there was no bodily injury."

Now, Boyle said, she and Cates would shift their focus to keeping him out of prison.

The trial, which began Monday, came down to who was more credible: Cates or the victim. Both testified, and they gave vastly different accounts.

Cates said the woman had sex with him willingly after he arrived at her north side home in response to her 911 call about neighbors throwing bricks and rocks through the windows. The two had met previously, during a traffic stop, and they started flirting and talking, he said. When he told her he was becoming aroused, she performed a sex act, which led to intercourse, he said.

In stark contrast, the woman testified that Cates assaulted her. As he did, she feared he could kill her and she would never see her two young children again. She didn't try to fight him, but did not want to have sex with him and did not consent, said the woman, then 19. She felt threatened by his police firearm, which was on his belt during the assault, she said.

During closing arguments earlier Wednesday, both the prosecution and the defense focused on the issue of whose version was more credible.

Saeed A. Mody, a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, told jurors Cates "went from police officer to predator when he preyed upon a young woman he saw as powerless, vulnerable and voiceless."

"He picked someone he thought would never say what happened, and if she did, no one would believe her," Mody said.

The jury should believe her, Mody said, because her consistency in relating the details of the assault, her actions afterward and the medical evidence in the case make her credible.

He reminded jurors that Cates had told an internal affairs detective three different stories. First, Cates denied having sexual contact with the woman in July, but said the two had previously had sex in his car while on a date after a traffic stop. Then, he said that although they did not have sex in July, she grabbed him and touched herself sexually. In a third statement, he said he and the woman engaged in two sex acts that were consensual. During the third statement, he also said they had not really had sex previously.

Boyle, the defense attorney, conceded in closing arguments that Cates had initially lied to the detective but contended that his third account, which he repeated on the witness stand, was the truth.

Boyle pointed out several inconsistencies in the details of the woman's statements, such as who took her children out of the house and whether Cates responded when she asked him to use a condom.

Boyle also emphasized that a medical examination of the victim after the incident showed no injuries to her vaginal area.

The U.S. attorney's office and FBI began investigating Cates in late 2010 after the Milwaukee County district attorney's office declined to charge him.

Cates was fired from the Police Department in December 2010 for lying and for "idling and loafing" because having sex on duty is against department rules.

Last year, a Journal Sentinel investigation revealed Cates had been accused of breaking the law five times before. Three of the previous allegations involved sexual misconduct - two with female prisoners and one with a 16-year-old girl. The alleged incidents date to 2000, three years after he was hired by the department.

Internal investigators referred Cates to the district attorney's office for possible charges in two of the previous cases.

The first was a domestic violence battery in 2000. Cates' then-girlfriend said he shoved and choked her. Prosecutors offered Cates a diversion agreement, which allowed him to avoid charges by refraining from criminal activity, avoiding violent contact with the victim and undergoing counseling.

A conviction on a domestic violence charge would have prevented Cates from carrying a gun under federal law and resulted in his removal from the force.

Police also referred Cates to the district attorney's office on allegations of having sex with the 16-year-old in 2007. Prosecutors declined to charge him.

Due to the rules of evidence, the jury was not allowed to hear testimony about any of the previous allegations.

Attorney Robin Shellow, who was retained by the victim to help her bring the case to prosecutors, said she was proud her client had not given up.

"It's humbling to have a client who went out and actively attempted to save the lives of other women," Shellow said. "It was a crime against her civil rights, and it was violence against women. . . . She has achieved justice on behalf of women in Milwaukee, and that doesn't happen very often."