Cops Shot Far Rockaway Teen 11 Times
Video: New School Students, Comrades Toss Trash Pre-Arrest
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Turkey Cruelty Ad Nixed By NBC
Would You Be Comfortable Locked On A Train With A Murderer?
Good morning. So this happened yesterday: Rape suspect John Hamlett, a convicted sex offender, was permitted to cross-examine an unnamed woman who accuses him of breaking into her East Third Street and Avenue B apartment in 2006 and sodomizing her at knifepoint. Against the advice of his lawyer, Hamlett insisted on cross-examining the distraught woman—a doctoral student in psychology now living in San Francisco—for about an hour. His questions included "I forced you to have oral sex, right?" and "You stated I put you in a chokehold? And you felt faint?" To which she responded, "Actually, I thought I was going to die." Finally, she begged the judge to stop the questioning, saying, "Do I have to do this? I've been through this. How many times do I have to go through this?" The judge told her she did, and Hamlett continued after a recess.
Alleged Rapist Allowed to Cross-Examine Victim
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (28) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Chinese government-owned construction company wins $100 million NYC Subway contract
http://www.china
[more]
Despicable. The upside of all this is that he will likely be convicted, I mean what kind of question is : "I forced you to have oral sex, right?"
Wouldn't this kind of questioning backfire in front of a jury? It's so...unseemly.
How can the Judge even allow this, especially for as long as an hour?
upsidedown justice 101- she's being victimized twice so that he can exercise his "rights"
Guess who'll be performing oral sex in prison soon? Bastard!!!
Rape is about control and power, not sex. (Most of the time.) Everyone in that courtroom who allowed this man to continue his abuse should be ashamed. This is a continuation of the rape that took place. He is getting off on it all over again.
Everyone who allowed this to happen should be punished.
Shame on them all.
With any luck he will only spend a short time in prison. He'll be working in the prison laundry when the guard watching them will leave "for a few minutes". A lot of things can happen with a blunt object especially when it connects with a head in those few minutes.
I find the title "Honorable" to be totally inappropriate. Why not give him a call.
Hon. Maxwell Wiley
Supreme Court, New York County
111 Centre Street
New York, NY 10013
(646) 386-4042
Why not innocent until proven guilty?
This is a disgrace. This woman shouldn't have to endure this all over again. This guy is a pig.
gross.
How about innocent until proven guilt without punishing the victim. Rape is one of just a few crimes that provides for additional considerations for the victim. There seems to be a case for not allowing the defendant to question her because it is traumatic and it is a bad legal move. Even his lawyer advised him that it could hurt.
Defendents questioning witnesses is for law and order.
"I forced you to have oral sex, right?"
isn't that a confession?
The judge and lawyers involved here should be ashamed of themselves. This is horrific to subject that woman to yet another attack by this man.
FrankMartin, I agree. People are far too quick cede any notion of constitutional rights and rule of law in cases where they have a visceral reaction to a monster like this.
This man has rights like everyone here. It would appear that those rights are about to be taken away by the criminal justice system, which makes it all the more important that it not be done arbitrarily.
Due process cannot be set aside when we feel like it -- we've already gone too far down that slippery slope in recent years.
Start talking about "terrorists," "sex offenders," or "pedophiles," and all reason goes out the window, it seems.
Are you kidding me?!?!? Would this judge put his daughter through this???
I am for innocent until proven guilty, but being cross examined by someone who is on trial for your rape and making you go into detail all over again about what happen so that some sicko can relive the experience and get off on it all over again is insane.
Everyone who let this happen should be ashamed of themselves.
no, they should not, las2381, be ashamed.
and in addition to the very fact that we have the right to face our accusers in open court, if the judge doesn't allow this, it is fairly obvious grounds for appeal, and then, guess what? the victim gets to relive it for a third time.
WTF? That MF should get dead penalty just for asking such questions to the victim.
This is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
If he's guilty, I hope he remembers this while he's getting sodomized every day in prison. Not that I hope it happens (wouldn't wish that on anyone), but if it does, I really hope he remembers every second of how he made her suffer.
This is how our justice system is suppose to work!? I'd like to know how the judge was able to get away with this?
The only reason for the defendant to do this is to indulge in a bit of sadistic pleasure. It clearly doesn't help his case.
Too bad women in this city have no second ammendment rights. Perhaps she could have shot this guy's balls off that horrible night. He could be cross examining her in a high-pitched Mickey Mouse voice now.
He is a "registered violent sex offender who served time for raping a developmentally disabled woman in 1995" and he is accused of attacking yet another woman in the same building.
Given these facts, what kind of logic is behind the judge's decision to allow for a gratuitous hour - long questioning? Is that not considered "harassing the witness"?
This idiot's lawyer, who never should have allowed this, is just as culpable as the judge. He should be sanctioned.
How is this NOT grounds for a mistrial?
If anyone ever deserved a shiv between the ribs, it's Hamlett.
I thought the defense lawyer was supposed to do the cross-examining. Granted everyone has the right to a fair trial, but in a situation like this, giving the accused this kind of power seems inherently wrong.
God help anyone who tries to force oral sex on me...I have sharp teeth...I WILL make sure they go ALL the way through...
From what I understand, this is perfectly legal--but just freakin SICK and WRONG. And I can only imagine that if they did NOT allow the guy to do it, he could try to declare some kind of mistrial or appeal or something based on the fact that his rights were violated. It's just disgusting.
LOL. CLASSIC! "Representation? Naw, I got this."