ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, March 17, 1997 TAG: 9703170119
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: ELIZABETHTOWN, N.Y.
SOURCE: WILLIAM GLABERSON THE NEW YORK TIMES
The traumatized girl wanted a two-week delay before she had to testify. The judge started the trial anyway and set the suspect free.
Judge Andrew Halloran's supporters say he takes a no-nonsense approach to running his courtroom. He demonstrated that last year when a 16-year-old said she was so traumatized at the prospect of appearing in court that she needed a two-week delay before she could testify against the man she said had tried to rape her and threatened to slash her throat.
The judge not only refused to grant a delay, but - over protests from the Essex County district attorney - he impaneled a jury, began a full trial and, when the young woman did not testify and the prosecutor declined to provide any evidence, dismissed all charges against the defendant.
Now, the case here in the Adirondacks is drawing statewide attention because of an unusual proceeding filed against the judge in an Albany appeals court.
Ronald J. Briggs, the district attorney, has challenged Halloran's decision to begin the trial, even though he had been told that the 16-year-old was suffering from sleeplessness, nausea, diarrhea and migraines. Her relatives said she had lost so much weight from anxiety that she had gone from a size 12 to a size 5 dress.
Critics of the judge, including state Attorney General Dennis Vacco, say the case shows that many judges remain insensitive to victims of sexual assault.
Vacco said Halloran ``denied this young girl her day in court and he denied her any sense of justice. Now, in addition to the alleged assault on her, this is an additional assault perpetrated by the system.''
Halloran's defenders say he was simply administering justice evenhandedly, even if that can be harsh sometimes.
Vacco's office, victims rights groups and the State District Attorneys Association have filed legal papers saying Briggs had a duty to make sure that the young woman was emotionally and physically able to testify. The judge, they said, abused his discretion not only by refusing to grant a delay but also by threatening the district attorney with contempt if he did not attend the trial.
``This kind of decision reflects an insensitivity to sexual assault victims in the courts that is totally incomprehensible,'' said Maud Easter, executive director of the New York State Coalition Against Sexual Assault, one of the groups supporting Briggs.
During jury selection and other proceedings held by Halloran, Briggs repeatedly said he was present because the judge had ordered him to attend, but he refused to participate. He said the prosecution had no case without the woman's testimony.
The rule against double jeopardy bars an appeal once a defendant has been subjected to trial. Because Halloran insisted on beginning a trial of the defendant, Richard E. Connors, both sides agree that his order dismissing the charges was not subject to a standard appeal.
In the special proceeding in the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Albany, Briggs is seeking to block Halloran from issuing a final order confirming the dismissal of the charges.
Michael R. Forcier, the lawyer for Connors, a Ticonderoga man, said the judge was enforcing Connors' right to question his accuser - ``and if the accuser doesn't come forward, sometimes that can be read as a sign that the accuser doesn't have a story to tell.''
The young woman was a baby sitter for Connors' children. She told police that Connors, 30, who is 6-foot-1 and weighs 210 pounds, attacked her one night, tried to rape her and said he would slash her throat if she told his wife. When she reported the attack to the police that night, they found bruises on her legs that she said were the result of fighting with Connors.
Forcier said Connors acknowledged that he and the baby sitter had a scuffle.
Connors was out on bail at the time Halloran insisted on beginning the trial. But Forcier said it was a tremendous burden for Connors to have the charges hanging over him for nine months, from February 1996, when the young woman went to the police, until September, when Halloran dismissed them.
Halloran declined to be interviewed. But in legal papers he filed last week, he said he refused to grant the delay partly because Briggs did not supply sworn statements such as doctors' letters about the condition of the young woman.
The judge also said Briggs asked for the postponement ``literally on the eve of trial.'' All the lawyers in the case agree that the case was the 11th on a list of 12 cases supposed to be ready for trial the week of Sept. 9.
But Briggs said that, by the time he was told that the other cases were not ready, he had already informed the nervous young woman that she would not have to testify that month. He said he learned that the judge definitely planned to reach that case only a day before the judge scheduled the trial to begin.
The young woman and her mother said when they suddenly learned that the 16-year-old might have to go to court on a day's notice, the stress was too great and they asked Briggs to try to get a delay.
``He shouldn't be free because my daughter was made sick by this,'' the mother said.
During long court arguments on Briggs' request for a delay, court records show, Halloran complained bitterly about what he said was Briggs' last-minute request. He also said he would arrange his schedule so Briggs could have five days, including a weekend, to prepare his witness to take the stand.
Halloran also said that, if he granted a delay, Briggs knew it would have to be for more than two weeks because of various schedule conflicts. ``Some of those reasons,'' the judge said, ``include the new building that we're going to have to move into, the fact that I have a vacation scheduled that month.''
In the legal papers he filed last week, Halloran said Briggs simply offered his unsupported opinion that the young woman was not able to testify. At the time, legal papers show, the judge expressed his own opinions, saying: ``I'm suspicious that you have a witness here who will never testify.'' He did not say why he held that view.
The judge also said he was denying Briggs' request for a delay because, although he understood the anxiety the 16-year-old had about testifying, ``my view is that she's probably better off - and I'm no psychologist - but she's probably better off to get this behind her.''
William J. Dreyer, Halloran's lawyer, said the judge had indicated in previous cases since taking the bench in 1995 that he expected evidence such as doctors' letters when lawyers said witnesses were ill.
Dreyer also said the judge thought his authority was being challenged when Briggs asked for a delay without supplying such information and then said he would not take part in a trial if he was ordered to proceed without the young woman's testimony.
Dreyer said Halloran was sensitive to the rights of victims but also thought it was important to maintain the authority of the court by insisting that his procedures be followed. He described the judge as tough and conservative, but compassionate.
``Judge Halloran,'' Dreyer said, ``was trying to adhere to his rules in such a way that it didn't matter whether it was a sexual assault case or a forgery case. The power of the court was challenged in such a way that he could not retreat.''
LENGTH: Long : 128 linesby CNB