Judge Doesn't Want To See Subway Perv's Penis

Yesterday, Daniel Barricella was arraigned on charges of public lewdness, sexual abuse and harassment after a Brooklyn Tech student snapped a shot of him exposing himself and grinding against her on the N train. And though Assistant District Attorney Alex Fisch tried to use the photo as evidence, Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Kevin McGrath was apparently ready to take him at his word, saying, "I don’t want to see that." Good to know our legal system is bypassing reviewing evidence because penises are icky.

The victim, 17-year-old Annie Jiang, had taken a picture of Barricella on her cellphone last week. She turned around after feeling something poking her on her back and told the Post, "He was just rubbing against me. "He masturbated against my back." (The paper also says Barricella's "emergency brake [was] exposed.")

If Barricella's family can get together his $500 bail, he may make a triumphant return to the subway, as Correction Department policy requires suspects who've spent a night in jail to be given a MetroCard to get them home. In this case, we'd be fine if our tax dollars went to paying for a cab.

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

By Jaya Saxena in News on October 6, 2010 10:58 AM

Comments [rss]

random transplant

Ordinarily I would bash this as non-news, except for all the illegal foreclosures where judges "didn't need" to see the affidavits, proof of ownership, deeds, ect...apparently its affected our entire housing market in addition to thousands of families.

When you don a judges robe and take on that solemn role, at least have enough respect for the process to go through he motions. Judicial jurisprudence in the absence of judicial prudence seems like an oxymoron.

jaycjay

It was only an arraignment, not a trial. The photo will be presented as evidence if the case does go to trial, but really wasn't necessary at this point.

fivefootmohawk

This happend to me last week at the 63rd drive train station, except the guy wasn't against my back more like 8 or so feet away. I cursed myself for not having my camera. If I knew I could just say I had the photo and not need to present it as proof I would have found a cop to grab that perv! Too many perverts jerking off on the subway!!!

John L

He's a dick.

ItchyGoiter

"Attorney Alex Fisch tried to use the photo as evidence, Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Kevin McGrath was apparently ready to take him at his word"

This makes it sound like the judge was ready to side with the prosecution. I think you mean that he was ready to take Barricella for his word, and not the ADA.

ItchyGoiter

My bad... I didn't realize this was just the arraignment.

jaycjay

I disagree. I take it as meaning that the prosecutor wanted to introduce the photographic evidence that he'd exposed himself, and the judge said he didn't want to see it; he believed that it existed and that the accused had in fact done so. Thus, he was taking the prosecutor at his word.