Rabbi Accused of Sexual Abuse Cross-Examines Daughter

Photo of Brooklyn Federal Court from Wired New York

As if taking the stand was not difficult enough for a woman who accuses her father, a rabbi, of molesting her for years, yesterday she had to face him as he cross-examined her at the trial—Rabbi Israel Weingarten is representing himself.

Inside Brooklyn Federal Court, the 27-year-old woman, who says Weingarten molested her from ages 9 through 16, when the family lived in Monsey in Rockland County and Belgium, as well as on trips, was asked by her father why she didn't come forward to the cleaning lady, a close confidante. She responded, "My feeling from your molesting me was the utmost fear of blackmail and torture. Because you hit me when I told my mother [about the abuse]. Why would I continue to reveal that? Didn't I get hit enough?"

The woman said she left the faith and attempted to "forget it ever happened to me" until her mother encouraged her to come forward. She says her father had told her that "she could never prove it." Weingarten also interrogated his daughter about a romance she pursued as a teenager with a married neighbor of theirs. She told him, "I finally got to be with another guy besides my father...I didn't do much thinking. I followed my heart." During the testimony, the News says that "some jurors glared at Weingarten, others wiped their eyes."

According to Newsday, Weingarten, who also has two lawyers assisting him "often interrupted his daughter's answers by scolding her." At some point during yesterday's cross-examination, his tone prompted Judge John Gleason to say to him, "You have [already] created a fairly untenable and horrific situation by your deciding to represent yourself. Now, I'm not sure where this cross-examination is going, but I know you are not going to lecture this witness." The woman will testify again today with testimony from her mother soon to follow.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Billy Parker in News on March 4, 2009 1:21 PM

Comments [rss]

ANGRYGOD11

The jury can choose to hate daddy or admire the daughter's guts for going through this or both. Dada is going to jail either way.

jaycjay

Sad that she has to endure this, but I'm happy when these narcissistic idiots choose to represent themselves, because they almost always crash and burn for an easy conviction.

gothamguy

Judge Gleeson is not happy about this at all, I am sure. He is very calm on the bench, but I recently watched him lecture someone who tried to fire their lawyer in the middle of a trial because it was obvious they were going to lose. He made it quite clear that he doesn't appreciate defendant's playing games in his courtroom -- such as representing yourself just to be difficult.

Past Taliban

Sooo it would seem Catholics are not the ONLY perverts on the block. Shalom !

maevemealone

Pretty sure that's a picture of the Brooklyn Post Office...

gothamguy

It was the Post Office, is now also the Bankruptcy Court and the United States Attorney's Office. The Court where this trial is happening is the one that is still under construction in that photo.

Guest

He's an idiot for representing himself. The jurors will not take kindly to the fact that he badgered his own daughter on the witness stand. I hope the team of lawyers that are helping him don't cry like little bitches for a mistrial when he's convicted.

Clarice City

Just a snap judgement; but, any father willing to cross examine his own daughter in public is probably guilty of something.

Also, if he were not guilty, wouldn't he be too devestated by the accusations to undertake such a defensive and aggresive action such as this?

JH4285

There really should be something on the books about alleged rape and abuse victims being cross-examined by the accused. Didn't this happen to another woman a few months ago? Disallowing such cross-examination makes no implications of guilt if the defendant should be innocent, but it traumatizes the victim and compromises testimony if the defendant is guilty. To be fair, I could see such a provision putting undue burden on people who cannot afford their own lawyers and don't want to chance it with overworked and underpaid court-appointed lawyers.

Politburo

Such a restriction simply isn't workable. It is a fundamental right in our justice system that the accussed be allowed to confront any witness. I understand that this results in a disincentive for victims to come forward, but I don't think that outweighs the fundamental right to confront.

JH4285

Shows how much I know about the law. Does having counsel cross-examine on a defendant's behalf not qualify as confronting the accuser? I'm guessing no.

Outter Burrougher

while i thoroughly understand how this is further traumatizing to the victim, to prevent someone on trial for a crime from facing their accuser is completely anathema to our system of justice. the burden of proof is on the prosecution, no matter how horrific the crime or the defendant. that's how we all have some (imperfect) protection from false accusations.

please understand, i am not saying that is the case in this situation, but we do not get to cherry pick who is worthy of our constitutional rights.