Friedman appeals to reverse sex abuse guilty plea

Court Alerts

[##_1L|1205486439.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Jesse Friedman's last chance to clear his name of child molestation charges now rests in the hands of a federal judge who heard evidence on his case at a hearing yesterday. Friedman, 38, is trying to reverse his 1988 guilty plea to sexually abusing children as a teenager with his father in Great Neck, a case that was notorious at the time and gained national attention again in 2003 with the Oscar-nominated documentary, "Capturing the Friedmans."

In court papers, Friedman's attorneys argue that Nassau prosecutors withheld evidence revealed later in the movie - a child who accused Friedman made statements to police after hypnosis.

Magistrate Judge Joanna Seybert heard evidence yesterday on a technical issue - whether Friedman filed his federal appeal in time to beat the statute of limitations. She did not say when she would rule.

Nassau County prosecutors and police have stood by Friedman's arrest and conviction. Joseph Onorato, a prosecutor on the 1988 case, refused to shake Friedman's extended hand yesterday outside the courtroom.

State courts have twice rejected Friedman's appeals in the past three years. If Seybert rejects his case, the plea stands.

With his wife, Elisabeth, 28, standing at his side, Friedman said he was "very optimistic."

"I'm not a child molester and I'm not ever going to rest until I prove to the courts and to the world that I'm not a child molester," said Friedman, who in 2001 was released from prison on parole.

In 1987, Friedman, then 18, and his father, Arnold, then 56, were charged with sodomizing 17 children who attended computer classes at their home. They both pleaded guilty, and the father was sentenced to 10 to 30 years; the son 6 to 18 years. Arnold Friedman committed suicide in 1995. The Friedmans proclaimed their innocence from prison but never appealed their guilty pleas.

At issue in yesterday's hearing was when Jesse Friedman learned of the victims' hypnosis and whether his federal case was filed in the next year, as the law requires.

Assistant District Attorney Judith Sternberg argued that Friedman learned of the hypnosis on Jan. 10, 2003, the night he first saw "Capturing the Friedmans." Because his state appeal was filed 362 days later on Jan. 7, 2004, and rejected on March 10, 2006, Sternberg said Friedman had to file his federal appeal within three days of the rejection. The federal case was filed June 23, 2006.

Friedman's attorney, Ron Kuby of Manhattan, contended that the statute of limitations did not begin until July 2003, when Friedman received access to transcripts of the documentary's interviews with anonymous accusers and confirmed their identity.

If Seybert rules in Friedman's favor, she will then hear evidence on whether the hypnotizing of the victim was proper and should have been revealed to Friedman's attorneys.

Related listings

  • Vick not expected to attend court hearing

    Vick not expected to attend court hearing

    Court Alerts 10/03/2007

    [##_1L|1193276699.jpg|width="130" height="90" alt=""|_##]Michael Vick’s lawyers will make their first Surry County, Va. court appearance Wednesday for state dogfighting charges against the suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback. Vick, already schedule...

  • Wyatt pleads guilty in Iraq oil case

    Wyatt pleads guilty in Iraq oil case

    Court Alerts 10/02/2007

    [##_1L|1251156130.jpg|width="120" height="143" alt=""|_##]Texas oil billionaire Oscar Wyatt, who in the mid-1990s was involved in a land dispute with a group of agencies in Utah, faces up to two years in prison after pleading guilty to paying an ille...

  • High Court Rejects Pfizer Appeal On Norvasc Generic

    High Court Rejects Pfizer Appeal On Norvasc Generic

    Court Alerts 10/01/2007

    [##_1L|1307025004.jpg|width="130" height="132" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Pfizer Inc. (PFE) that had sought to bar Apotex Inc. (AOX.YY) from selling a generic version of Norvasc, a popular hypertension drug. T...

Victorville CA DUI defense Attorneys

The outcome of a DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.

The charges you are facing for a DUI range from fines, a 12-month suspension on your license and worst-case scenario, prison time. Your attorney will be able to analyze your situation to decide the best way to go about your case.

Our attorneys know the tricky ways to challenge all of the DUI tests and know how to claim improper collection of evidence. We will be able to negotiate on your behalf and free you from charges and help you keep your drivers license. The DUI process can last up to several months, we can make this process easier on you. .

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read