By Ann V. Bollinger
The lawyer for cybersex defendant Oliver Jovanovic yesterday continued
to hack away at the testimony of the woman who claims the computer nerd
kidnapped and tortured her.
Hammering at apparent inconsistencies, defense lawyer Jack Litman homed
in on the woman's statement to police following the alleged attack on
Nov. 22, 1996.
He got the 22-year-old Barnard College woman to admit the account she
gave to cops and the one she gave in court were slightly different.
Jovanovic has been accused of kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse,
sodomy, sexual abuse and assault, and faces 25 years to life in prison
His accuser testified last week that on the night of the attack - the
couple's first date after six months of correspondence on the Internet -
Jovanovic ordered her to remove her sweater and pants, and then tied her
to a futon bed in his apartment with cloth strips.
He then allegedly poured hot wax on her body, bit her breasts and
sodomized her during a 20-hour attack, she testified.
"Did you tell detectives ... that he tied your legs to the futon ... and
told you to take off your sweater?" Litman asked. "You couldn't take
your pants off while your legs were tied, could you?"
The woman admitted she couldn't remember "being tied up when I had my
"But if that's what I wrote, it must have been," she said.
The lawyer also got the woman to admit she used two different Social
Security numbers on different legal documents, although the woman said
it was only a mistake in memory.
In addition, Litman brought up the apparently strained relationship
between the woman and her father during questioning about her use of
credit cards with her mother's permission - but not with her dad's.
But he failed to get the woman to talk about S&M practices that are
allegedly alluded to in e-mail notes between her and Jovanovic.
Meanwhile, tensions between Litman and acting state Supreme Court
Justice William Wetzel continued to mount.
For the second time, the defense asked for a mistrial in the case during
closed-door talks that are becoming increasingly bitter, a courtroom
source told The Post.
The mistrial is being sought because of the alleged bias of Wetzel,
according to the courtroom source.
The defense also wants the judge to recuse himself from further
proceedings because of the alleged bias, the source said.
The defense, in its arguments to the judge in private session, cited the
judge's use of "derisive, sarcastic and condescending language" toward
Litman, the source said.
The defense also claims the judge has a "clear ... bias ... favoring and
protecting the complaining witness and completely antagonistic" to
Litman, the source said.
Wetzel ordered a hearing on the mistrial application for 8:30 a.m.
[ Home | Oliver Jovanovic | The Case | The DA & The Media | The DA vs. Civil Liberties | Commentary | The Legal Defense Fund ]