More

Dharun Ravi's Trial Date Set In Tyler Clementi Suicide

Dharun Ravi

By GEOFF MULVIHILL   10/20/11 11:32 PM ET   AP

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- A former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man turned down a plea deal that could have limited his time behind bars to five years or kept him out of prison altogether.

Dharun Ravi, 19, on Thursday affirmed his decision to go to trial, at which a conviction could mean 10 years or more in prison. A judge set a trial date of Feb. 21 for the case, which helped set off a national conversation about bullying of young gays and lesbians.

Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old violinist in his first weeks at Rutgers, killed himself in September 2010, just days after the alleged spying.

Ravi faces 15 criminal counts in all, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation, a hate crime. In the pretrial hearing Thursday to settle several issues about evidence, he remained silent, other than to say "yes" when state Superior Court Judge Glenn Berman asked him whether he understood the risks he faces by appearing in court.

The plea deal would have required Ravi to plead guilty to a handful of the 15 counts, including a bias intimidation count, which normally carries a prison sentence of five to 10 years. In exchange for Ravi's cooperation, prosecutors were willing to recommend a sentence of three to five years, but the judge would have been able to sentence him to no prison time.

The judge ruled that Ravi's lawyer should not have access to Clementi's personal writings, including documents found on his computer. He also ruled against a defense motion that he recuse himself because a distant relative who is a television producer told a New York Times reporter last month that she was interested in the case.

One key issue may not be resolved.

The judge reiterated his ruling of six months ago that Ravi, his lawyer and his lawyer's investigator should be given the name and birthdate of the man who had the encounter with Clementi – but with the caveat that they not give that information to anyone else.

Prosecutors objected to the disclosure requirement last month and asked the judge to reconsider.

On Thursday, the man, identified in court papers only as M.B., was represented in court by Richard Pompelio, a victims' rights lawyer who argued that his right to privacy outweighs Ravi's need to have information to defend himself.

Ravi's lawyer, Steven Altman, contended that the name of the man – who is considered a victim and a witness in the case – is necessary for his client, even though the man has said he does not want to speak with defense lawyers.

"If you were standing where I am, wouldn't you want to learn what was in the mind of T.C.?" he asked the judge. "And what did M.B. know, what was he told, what wasn't he told? Who is he? Where is he from? Wouldn't you want to proceed to try to get that information?"

Pompelio argued that media exposure would harm M.B.

"Once they find out who he is, they find out his face," he said. "As the defendant knows, he has family and a web of relationships that are impacted by anything that happens to him. If his name gets out, it's out and it's out forever."

After court, Pompelio said he would not disclose any information about his client, including his age or occupation.

The judge said he was sensitive to M.B.'s right to privacy but believes Ravi should know who his accuser is.

"He'll never be stigmatized by any person who's thoughtful, balanced and fair," the judge said.

Middlesex County prosecutor Julia McClure and Pompelio said they intend to appeal that ruling.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST COLLEGE

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- A former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man turned down a plea deal that could have limited his ti...
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. -- A former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man turned down a plea deal that could have limited his ti...
Filed by Leah Finnegan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 136
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:33 PM on 11/23/2011
If Tyler Clementi hadn't taken his own life, I don't believe there would be a trial at all. Rather, there would have been whatever punishment deemed appropriate by college officials. Maybe up to and including expulsion for both Ravi and Wei. Sorry, but as much as I am against what Ravi did, I can't see sending an 18 year old to prison for 3 - 10 years, whatever punishment is deemed politically correct at the time of sentencing (providing he is found guilty). In this regard, he is NOT going to receive a fair trial at all. It's going to be a kangaroo court, at least with regard to sentencing, to appease whatever group or groups who are powerful enough to want to see blood. I just can't agree with that.

It's really horrific to see the number of comments of people who, on the one hand, condemn an invasion of privacy being so indecent, but on the other hand, are looking forward to picturing Ravi being raped in prison. I hope you people are never selected for jury duty.
05:37 PM on 10/23/2011
This is a fascinating case, the issues are complex and messy... but I question the journalistic intent of referring to this as a "suicide trial". It is, in fact, an invasion of privacy and a coverup trial.. Those are the salient legal issues.

The salient social issues are the compelilng torque that a talented young man felt about his orientation, which was one that was, apparently, not acceptable to his mother. And, apparently, not to his callously insensitive room-mate.

I hope the courts proceed on a meticulous focus on the specific charges related to Ravi's apalling behavior. Frankly, I think he is quite possibly a shallow self centered prejudiced twerp.

But, the issue of Clementi's suicide, a permanent solution to a temporary problem, is a massive challenge for all of us culturally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imhotep40
He who comes in peace
03:35 PM on 10/23/2011
I've been reading the comments about this story and the majority advocate harsh judgement and sentencing for Ravi. His crime is irresponsible, callous, stupid and deserving of the proverbial legal book being thrown at him; however, Clementi's parents aren't seeking or hoping for harsher punishment of Ravi. This raises a more important question of who trumps being make whole from this crime? Who's wishes are more important, the parent's of the victim or society's faith in our courts?

In a nutshell, what represents justice of this senseless crime vs. what represents some semblance of closure for the victim's grieving family? The two are potentially different and one can impact or diminish the other.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
07:24 PM on 10/23/2011
So, what you're saying is, if your son is murdered, but you kinda like the person who murdered him and don't want to make a big thing out of it, or maybe the murderer is a school official and they've offered you big bucks to come out against prosecution, he should not be tried for the crime of murder? Or maybe you don't care one way or other, but the parents of the perp who have big bucks to throw around have offered you a sizable amount of money to be nice, that is, to buy you off, the kid should not be prosecuted? That's what it sounds like. The law's the law, and regardless what the parents think, they are not the judge and jury here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imhotep40
He who comes in peace
09:17 PM on 10/23/2011
Ron,

That's not at all what I'm saying, I'm speaking to spiritual/ethical judgement or laws which transcends man's laws. There is but one sin or crime in spiritual law and that's theft.

Do you honestly think that the crime of Native American Reservations, slavery, lynching, Japanese Internment Camps, dropping bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki which were supported and executed because of "the law's the law" mentality regardless of what the victims thought? They weren't the "judge and jury" either and still haven't received justice.

My question, perhaps not well expressed, attempted to examine what is true justice, true restitution, true remorse and apology from the perpetrator for the crime of spiritual theft (in its varying degrees). To your supposition, if it were my son, it would be personal and wouldn't be satisfied by a judge or jury.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SionShankel
My opinons are all done sans pants
09:04 PM on 10/23/2011
It is up to us, the state to decide punishment. The state's jobs is not to heal, but to protect from and prevent crime. Th remove criminals from our midst and return them to us when they are no longer unsafe

If we let victims or those close to them decide it is very slippery slope...it gets very uneven, biased, racist, classist and is open to bribery to not being punished... all the way to over the top vigilantism.

People need to know what the exact consequences are and that they are dealt out evenly...that is how crime is deterred and how punishment is keep fair.

Closure is a personal internal emotional event. It can happen with or without punishment. It is solely the responsibility of the person needing it. Vengeance is not a form of closure that is good for society.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imhotep40
He who comes in peace
10:12 PM on 10/23/2011
Sion, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree that crime and punishment dispensed by the state is not about healing; but my thoughts on incarceration/rehabilitation are a completely different conversation.

My question was less about victims choosing the fate of the criminal and more about who's restitution or law should be considered. What aspects of any apology or remorse by the criminal approaches the needs of the victims close to the crime? The truth of the matter is that our judicial system is very "uneven, biased, racist, classicist" in its present form. People don't know what the exact consequences are and know that they aren't dealt out evenly. In a nutshell, punishment is not "fair".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imhotep40
He who comes in peace
10:39 PM on 10/23/2011
How does society punish the crime of stupidity?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dirk1
Same Sex Married
08:14 AM on 10/23/2011
No, he won't be stigmatized by fair people. Unfortunately, it's still very much open season on gays in this country.
I understand that it is important for the defense to have every possible resource placed at their disposal. I do hope, however, that this horrible man is found guilty of all 15 charges and sentenced to the maximum of prison time. Without parole.
02:39 PM on 10/23/2011
..........And consecutive sentences on all counts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:43 AM on 10/23/2011
He is lucky that the Family of the Victim has said that they don't want to press for more charges they could have.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
07:28 PM on 10/23/2011
OK, fine. They are lucky knowing they won't be sued by the victim's family, but that should not have any bearing on whether or not he goes to trial for his crimes. ALL of them! And his arrogance of turning down a plea should also be considered by the judge and jury. Send him up the river....ONE WAY!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
12:07 AM on 10/23/2011
Dharun Ravi's lawyer wants to disrupt more innocent people's private lives the same way Ravi harmed Tyler Clementi with snooping and gossip. Hmm. A pattern here? What a swell bunch of guys, the defense team is ... they just don't get what this trial is about.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
07:31 PM on 10/23/2011
Birds of a feather, as they say. He found himself an ambulance-chaser who thinks as he does. They can all hang together, if not separately.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rockysparks
there's no law against being annoying.
09:41 PM on 10/23/2011
My theory is that Ravi didn't even think about the possible consequences when he set this tragedy in motion. He's just a stupid prankster who was just trying to impress --- his girlfriend? His "peeps"? --- with his technosavvy. Such people are basically immature and out of touch with other people's feelings.

I hope he gets some jail time and the rest of the world can be protected from him while hopefully he gains some maturity the hard way. Maybe he'll come out of this situation a damaged, but better person ...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
10:30 PM on 10/22/2011
Why the prosecutor would want to give Ravi a plea deal that would get him off scot-free is beyond me. Is it less a serious crime because the victims are gay?

This guy needs to do some hard prison time for his crime.
photo
Karissa36
Saving lost boys and fighting pirates.
11:12 AM on 10/23/2011
The prosecutor is trying to protect the other man in the sex film from having his identity exposed, and possibly having to testify. This "man" might be an 18 or 19 year old college freshman. (I don't know, but it is possible.) Protecting other victims, and this other man is a victim, is a legitimate aim for the prosecutor. Tough call, I agree.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:08 AM on 10/24/2011
I don't disagree. I think MB needs to be protected and that Ravi's lawyers don't need the personal info they seek, which they would use to discredit the two victims.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
06:50 PM on 10/22/2011
Hey Dharun Ravi, spied on anyone having sex lately? How are things progressing in your social life these days? I'll bet you're a million laughs at campus parties...too bad you're the punchline. What part of MYOB didn't Mommy and Daddy teach you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
05:07 PM on 10/22/2011
So let's get this straight:
Clementi/Ravi=roommates.
Clementi has sex w/man in room shared w/Ravi. Ravi sees & records encounter. Clementi commits suicide. Ravi's charged with "invasion of privacy" & other crimes.

Right. Got roommate, & still EXPECT "privacy" when you know roomie can walk in/out anytime. Furthermore, you're having sex w/another man, still expecting "privacy."

Got that. Makes a flippin' TON of sense. (Why not just go to the No-Tell Motel)?

DA & accuser's lawyer want to keep accuser's identity "secret." Lawyer argues his "right" to "privacy" supersedes defendant's right to a fair trial. HUH? Where'd these 2 bozos go to law school? where do they THINK they're practicing law? (the moon, maybe?) They're refusing to comply w/court order to release identity--isn't that "contempt of court"? Why don't lawyers ever get slapped w/this charge like ordinary people do?!

Well.
A guy named Sir Walter Raleigh was charged w/treason--a capital crime--by Britain, 400-odd years ago. Evidence being ONLY written statements by accusers. Raleigh demands of court his accusers be "brought face-to-face to be deposed!" Motion denied. Raleigh convicted.

Hauled off to Tower of London, & WHAAPP!-- beheaded.

Methinks the Founding Fathers were mindful of that infamous & atrocious miscarriage of "justice" when 8th Amendment/the right to cross-examine accusers was written.

Ravi, tell the judge, like Raleigh, "Bring my accusers face-to-face to be deposed!" & end this stupid charade by those "lawyers."

YAAH!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erin84
09:40 PM on 10/22/2011
Yeah, I think it was totally reasonable of Clementi to assume that when he asked to be alone in the room,and Rhavi agreed and left, that he was not going to secretly film him and broadcast it over the internet. That's it! The whole thing must be Clementi's fault! Your comment was absolutely stunning, and not in a good way. Unless M.B.'s testimony is relevant to the matter at hand, that Rhavi knowingly, secretly filmed Clementi and broadcasted him on the internet, then he shouldn't have to testify. He has already been victimized once.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
10:32 PM on 10/22/2011
You'll want to reread the facts of this crime, Laureen. Ravi secretly filmed Clementi and his partner when they were alone in the room.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Indoboy7
02:48 PM on 10/22/2011
It is high time that Dharun Ravi be introduced to the real world. HIs rich parents apparantly did not think it necessary to imbue in their son a capacity for empathy - thereby creating an unfeeling monster, who -according to witnesses who knew him in High school- was totally at peace with his "pranksterways", everything in life was one big joke to Ravi...He is in sore need for time to reflect. time in solitary confinement...It would be altogether "poetic" justice were Ravi to ben sentenced for a very lengthy period of time in the company of another inmate - a 285 lbs "bubba" who would-no doubt- introduce Ravi into the world of gay sex ...(-of course-as a prank ....RAvi's favorite pastime activity. This disgusting individual who is now trying to pass as a human being is in the right place......a court of law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
03:34 PM on 10/22/2011
Thank you for the lovely remarks.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
08:32 PM on 10/23/2011
Laureen, just be thankful these threads are moderated, or some of us might really tell you what we think of you.
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
06:55 PM on 10/22/2011
When he goes to jail, no doubt some of his cellmates will have heard what he did to get there. I'm sure they will share with the entire prison his little sexual escapades. And I don't think they'll need a camera and a laptop..."line starts over there, guys."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muskered
02:47 PM on 10/22/2011
"He'll never be stigmatized by any person who's thoughtful, balanced and fair," the judge said.

My God, a judge said that? In other words MB will only be stigmatized by the people who stigmatize him. That's brilliant!
04:28 PM on 10/22/2011
Doesn't say much for the judge's judgement.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
05:14 PM on 10/22/2011
If he doesn't want "exposure" & "stigmatization," then why didn't he & Clementi just head off to the local No-Tell Motel?

Then, 0 body would know of their tryst, there'd be 0 "exposure" to either for being homosexual, or any "stigmatization."

Instead, they wanted to do it on the cheap, in Clementi's dorm room--NOT a "private" room by any definition of the word or stretch of the imagination, & voila! they get busted! BIG "surprise!--"what happened to my PRIVACY????!!!!!"

The No-Tell Motel will handle all this business for you, @ no extra charge.

Seems simple to me; problem solved.....
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
07:08 PM on 10/22/2011
Maybe they had an agreement like some college roommates do. They tie a sock or something on the doorknob that indicates, "I'm busy inside...come back later." So, maybe the kid thought he had privacy when Ravi left the room. Only tricky Ravi (snicker, snicker) secretly leaves the old webcam on so he and his friends can watch and have a good laugh at Clementi's expense. What a guy! Tells me a lot about this Ravi and his friends who didn't think to tell Ravi that hey, maybe this isn't a very nice thing to do. Ravi likes to watch gay sex. Hmmmm. I think he's going to see a lot of it in prison. Like, really close up.

His parents must be SO proud! Their son has embarrassed them and they have to live with his stupid, immature behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erin84
09:43 PM on 10/22/2011
Ravi, agreed to leave him alone to let him have privacy, then deceived him and violated him by secretly taping him. Were you made of money in college, to go off to a hotel everytime you wanted to kiss someone? They didn't even have sex. Get real. You're really really really stretching to blame the victim here. Your crappy character is showing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluejoni2525
and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden
02:15 PM on 10/22/2011
My son goes to college with someone who knew Ravi in high school. He said that Ravi was a total prankster and was always pulling practical jokes, however he never felt that Ravi was a homophobe. This whole case is just so sad but I'm not sure putting Ravi in jail for years is the answer. I have read that Clementi's mom did not take her son's coming out well at all. I just think there were many factors that might have contributed to Tyler Clementi's suicide. Ravi never should have used that webcam to spy however !!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffrey Marks
04:31 PM on 10/22/2011
You call it a prank to record and play for the world someone's most intimate moments? Your definition of prankster is a bit skewed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
05:20 PM on 10/22/2011
Well, look here, Jeffrey Marks--

Suppose these two skulked off to the No-Tell Motel & had their tryst THERE.

Do ya think any of this would be going on if those 2 weren't trying to do this on the cheap?

Methinks not. No-Tell Motel = 0 PROBLEM! "Privacy" included in room rate, but not in SHARED dorm room......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluejoni2525
and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden
12:16 AM on 10/23/2011
Show me where I called it a prank !!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jbrantow
05:13 PM on 10/22/2011
Whatever the circumstances prior to Clementi's death, it was Ravi's "prank" that seems to be the trigger that pushed Tyler over the edge. Ravi pulled that trigger and needs to pay for that action.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
01:17 PM on 10/22/2011
And hateful stupid people go to college too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
05:21 PM on 10/22/2011
They do.

Ravi isn't 1 of them, so your point is what...?
photo
Ron in NYC
To err is human, to moo bovine.
07:23 PM on 10/22/2011
Who are you? His mother? His girlfriend who was with him when he pulled this stunt?

If you've ever watched Leno interview people on the street in his Jaywalking segment (on YouTube), you know how incredibly stupid some people are with college degrees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jbrantow
11:47 PM on 10/22/2011
Amazing how ignorant hateful bigots like yourself can rationalize and spin so the criminal comes off innocent. Sorry but you are wrong on all your spinning. I hear there is a klan meeting tonight, aren't you going to be late?
10:18 PM on 10/21/2011
And another thing. Dead people do not have a legally recognized right to privacy. The prosecution has no right to hold exclusive custody of the deceased room mates written materials or any relevant evidence that may be on his computer. Theoretically this criminal case would have to hold up whether the guy committed suicide or laughed the whole thing off. A fair trial requires full disclosure. It could be this guy was very suicidal and the jury who will certainly know he killed himself is entitled to all relevant evidence as to why he did so. Otherwise the prosecution is simply making a demon of the defendant and putting him on trial for another man's suicide. Totally unfair.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bowloforanges
"Je pense donc je suis"
01:12 PM on 10/22/2011
Plain and simple this guy was a bully.....

Research indicates that adults who bully have personalities that are authoritarian, combined with a strong need to control or dominate. It has also been suggested that a prejudicial view of subordinates can be a particularly strong risk factor.

Further studies have shown that envy and resentment may be motives for bullying. Research on the self-esteem of bullies has produced equivocal results. While some bullies are arrogant and narcissistic, others can use bullying as a tool to conceal shame or anxiety or to boost self esteem: by demeaning others, the abuser him/herself feels empowered.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
03:44 PM on 10/22/2011
OK, so WHERE is YOUR evidence/proof that Ravi is ANY of these things? Like, "a bully"? Who has examined & tested him & found him to be a "bully"?

You?

Just bcz YOU say he's a "bully" doesn't make it so.

Who cares about "research" if anybody's "research" has 0 to do w/Ravi?

"Research" & "studies" can be framed to make them say whatever you want them to say, depending on who the "researcher" is, & who's FUNDING the "study" or "research."

Unless you have real & actual EVIDENCE that Ravi is indeed a "bully," your remarks are irrelevant to the topic @ hand.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laureenholt
TheConservativeCurmudgeon
03:53 PM on 10/22/2011
And WHERE'S your evidence/proof that Ravi is any of these things? Including a "bully"? Who has examined & tessted him to find that he is a "bully"?

You?

Who cares about "research" & "studies"? What has any of this to do w/Ravi's guilt? Or lack of it? You fail to recognize that "research" & "studies" can be conducted such that they give you the exact results you're looking for--it all has to do with the impartiality (or lack of) the "researcher/study-er" AND who's FUNDING the "research/study."

Not one speck of this "research/study" business has anything to do w/Ravi's guilt, or lack of it. Making comments like these totally irrelevant to the topic @ hand.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Muskered
02:49 PM on 10/22/2011
Rich: Life is unfair pal, so get over it!