Gothamist: Alleged Rapist Allowed to Cross-Examine Victim

everyAframe

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:14:07 -0500

LOL. CLASSIC! "Representation? Naw, I got this."

WorksInDUMBO

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:43:49 -0500

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.

Americano_Estupido

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:30:31 -0500

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...

Spiritof76

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:56:44 -0500

If anyone ever deserved a shiv between the ribs, it's Hamlett.

rasputinsghost

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:53:35 -0500

How is this NOT grounds for a mistrial?

Phineas Gage

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:27:16 -0500

This idiot's lawyer, who never should have allowed this, is just as culpable as the judge. He should be sanctioned.

Clarice City

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:13:31 -0500

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"?

ides_of_march

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:53:41 -0500

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.

Steven

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:47:36 -0500

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?

cucarachita

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:30:23 -0500

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.

Amanda Harlech

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:26:26 -0500

WTF? That MF should get dead penalty just for asking such questions to the victim.

Outter Burrougher

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:20:54 -0500

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.

las2381

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:57:25 -0500

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.

Quidnam

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:45:16 -0500

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.

jag80

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:37:20 -0500

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.

zodak

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:13:44 -0500

"I forced you to have oral sex, right?" isn't that a confession?

FrankMartin

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:55:40 -0500

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.

smitty

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:55:17 -0500

gross.

r1b2

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:49:41 -0500

This is a disgrace. This woman shouldn't have to endure this all over again. This guy is a pig.

chris

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:45:45 -0500

Why not innocent until proven guilty?

FrankMartin

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:34:13 -0500

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

Splicer

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:30:01 -0500

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.

mihow

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:27:53 -0500

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.

Brooklynbobby

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:20:08 -0500

Guess who'll be performing oral sex in prison soon? Bastard!!!

Tgirl

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:17:51 -0500

upsidedown justice 101- she's being victimized twice so that he can exercise his "rights"

Kojak

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:17:18 -0500

How can the Judge even allow this, especially for as long as an hour?

Jen Chung

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:59:53 -0500

Wouldn't this kind of questioning backfire in front of a jury? It's so...unseemly.

JRod5417

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:53:02 -0500

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?"