By Ann V. Bollinger
From it's explosive beginning to is stunning end, the cybersex trial of Oliver Jovanovic has been the talk of the Manhattan Criminal Courts building - and not just because of the titillating subject matter. Spectators - including many lawyers - were intrigued by the courtroom theatrics between acting Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel and defense lawyer Jack Litman.
Many of those lawyers - and even a judge - yesterday suggested the bitter antagonism led to the guilty verdict against the 31-year-old Columbia microbiology grad student. "Unequivocally, the judge's attitude toward the defense had everything to do with the verdict of this case," said one defense lawyer. "It led the jury to draw one conclusion." One judge in the building said he was "embarassed by Wetzel's behavior in this case." "The way he treated the defense is unheard of," the judge said. "I was especially surprised at the judge's charge [to the jury] when he told them consent is not a defense on assault." In his instructions, Wetzel told the jury that even if the victim consented to sex with Jovanovic, it did not defend him against assault charges.
It was a pitched battle almost from Day One between Wetzel and Litman: one a politically powerful figure, the other a criminal defense titan. Twice, Litman moved for a mistrial, citing Wetzel's "increasing hostility in front of the jury." Often, the judge abruptly cut off Litman mid-sentence. Other times, the judge's face said it all. "He would laugh and smile and make faces at his law secretary about Litman," one lawyer said. The talk of the courthouse also centered on Wetzel's "back-door" journey to the Criminal Court bench - a journey that included no experience in criminal law, lawyers say.
He was affiliated with the law firm of Plunkett and Jaffe - Gov. Pataki's former firm. When Pataki won election, he appointed Wetzel to the Court of Claims. Wetzel immediately was assigned to state Supreme Court as an acting justice - skipping the lower Criminal Court altogether. That, according to some lawyers, put Wetzel in over his head. "I think this case was all about the judge's hatred of Jack Litman," one lawyer said. "This was about, 'I can't hide my disdain for Jack Litman.'"
By Dan Morrison
A Manhattan judge knew of evidence that could have helped a murder suspect in his courtroom, but improperly allowed prosecutors to keep it secret, a defense attorney has charged.
The judge, acting State Supreme Court Justice William Wetzel, has presided over two murder trials of Lorenzo Rodriguez, accused in the February, 1994, slaying of Gregory Steruick of Rhode Island during a drug buy in Washington Heights.
Steruick was killed at 2:15 a.m., when someone pointed a pistol in the driver's side window of his Renault and announced a robbery as Steruick and two friends were waiting for $200 worth of cocaine, according to testimony. Steriuck stepped on the gas and was shot. In a motion filed Friday asking the judge to recuse himself, Dana Hanna, Rodriguez' lawyer, charged that Wetzel was told by prosecutors before Rodriguez' first trial in February, 1996, that the witness who first identified Rodriguez as the killer, a violent felon named Hector Coste, had himself been a suspect in the murder.
Rodriguez' first trial ended with a hung jury. He was acquitted of intentional murder at his second trial, in May, 1996. That jury deadlocked on the charge of murder committed in the course of a felony. Jury selection for a third trial begins today. Hanna contends that recently unsealed transcripts of two private, orex parte, conversations between the judge and prosecutor prior to the first trial show that Coste was probably the killer.
The transcripts indicate that Coste was seen by one of Steruick's friends, George Cancel, at the scene of the shooting (although Cancel's name is misspelled in the text): "In this first go-round," assistant district attorney Doreen Klein told the judge, " . . . Mr. Cansel [sic] says he thought Coste may have been at the scene . . . Mr. Cansel [sic] has since told me he thinks
Coste may have been at the window of the car when the shooting occurs, but he was definitely not the shooter."
Hanna also charges that:
- Wetzel knew Coste, 24, closely resembled the man Cancel first identified as the shooter - a "big, broad" black male weighing between 210 and 240 pounds, wearing a black leather coat. Cancel later recanted that description. Law enforcement sources said he has changed his story several times. Rodriguez is a 25-year-old Hispanic who weighs 140 pounds.
- Wetzel knew Coste was charged in a knifepoint robbery on the same street where the murder occurred, three weeks after Steruick was killed. In the 30-page recusal motion, Hanna says Wetzel "was unquestionably made aware of the same exculpatory facts" and "allowed prosecutorial misconduct to occur." The motion is Hanna's third effort at getting the judge to step down.
Wayne Brison, a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney, said in an interview that Klein had done nothing improper. Brison said Coste's identity and other facts were not divulged in the first trial to safeguard Coste's life. Coste testified for the prosecution at the second trial, and most of the facts of his involvement were revealed then.
Wetzel was appointed by Gov. George Pataki in 1995. According to a spokesman for the state court system, he worked as the governor's law partner two decades ago. Wetzel said in court last month he had "made an ongoing effort to maximize discovery to the defense . . ." and said Hanna's claim was "the most serious charge that can ever be brought against a judge." He called the charge "absurd."
But defense lawyers and experts on legal ethics who were contacted by Newsday said that in withholding information about Coste, the judge and the prosecution were on shaky ground.
"It's a very serious matter," said Monroe Freedman, a Jackson Heights attorney who teaches ethics at Hofstra University Law School.
"The prosecution has an obligation, ethically and legally, to give this information to the defense. There is at least a question of the propriety of the prosecutor."
Hanna's defense throughout has been that Coste, and not Rodriguez, killed Steruick. Months after the murder, while awaiting trial for an armed robbery on the same drug-ridden stretch of West 160th Street, Coste told detectives Rodriguez was the killer. Coste said he was standing on a nearby corner when he saw Rodriguez shoot Steruick. Coste, who has been arrested 12 times since 1990, pleaded guilty to second-degree attempted robbery five months after he testified against
Rodriguez and was sentenced to 2 to 4 years. Transcripts of hearings held before Rodriguez' first trial show Hanna trying to learn who fingered his client, to little avail.
Hanna: " . . . if this anonymous witness is on the scene, I have a right to know that . . . "
Wetzel: "Well, without alluding to the facts of this case, I don't think the law is that if someone were an eyewitness he then rises to being exculpatory and his identification has to be known. You have to do your own investigation."
At another point, Hanna asked Wetzel, " . . . they have identified Anonymous Witness Number 1 as an eyewitness to the crime. Right or wrong?"
Wetzel replied, "No."
"This person did not see anybody?" Hanna then asked.
Wetzel replied: "That's not necessarily an assumption to be drawn here. But you're certaintly not going to cross-examine me to identify the witness."
Ellen Yaroshefsky, an ethics professor at Benjamin Cardozo Law School, said: "There are serious questions here as to whether the judge ought to recuse himself. There is certaintly the appearance that he was assisting the prosecution in withholding evidence that was crucial to the defense."
[ Home | Oliver Jovanovic | Press Articles | The Allegations | The DA & The Media | Assault on Civil Liberties | Commentary | The Reversal | The Legal Defense Fund ]