State moves to have accused N.J. troopers identified
The state attorney general is pushing again to identify the seven New Jersey state troopers accused in the alleged gang-rape of a Rider University student, saying there is "at least the appearance" the men exploited the very person they are paid to protect.
The state attorney general is pushing again to identify the seven New Jersey state troopers accused in the alleged gang-rape of a Rider University student, saying there is "at least the appearance" the men exploited the very person they are paid to protect.
In a motion filed late yesterday, state officials asked an appellate judge to reconsider a decision by an appeals panel last month that said disciplinary hearings should remain closed because the accuser has been "roundly discredited" and that troopers and their families would be embarrassed if the details of the allegations were publicized.
"The transparency of these disciplinary proceedings is essential to maintain the public's trust and confidence in the State Police and its ability to discipline its members in an open fact finding process," Attorney General Paula T. Dow wrote in the motion.
The disciplinary hearings have stalled State Police administrators and attorneys for the troopers disagree whether the hearings are open to the public.
The names of the men have not been released since the woman, then 25, alleged in 2007 that she was sexually assaulted at the Ewing, N.J., home of one of the troopers after she and the group drank at KatManDu, a Trenton bar.
No criminal charges were filed, but the troopers, who were off duty, have been suspended without pay after they were charged administratively. They are bound by a professional code of conduct that applies to their actions, even when off duty, authorities said.
Criminal and internal investigations by state and local authorities revealed that, at a minimum, there had been potentially embarrassing sexual activity that the troopers allege was consensual.
The brief filed Monday raises new questions whether the woman, who had been drinking and was outnumbered by troopers she did not know well, was in a position where she could refuse or even form consent.
"These circumstances raise the genuine likelihood, or at least the appearance, that the troopers exploited a young woman who was in a vulnerable position," the brief said. "The primary responsibility of a State Trooper is to protect members of the public, particularly those who may be vulnerable to exploitation."
Last month's decision authored by Judges Mary Catherine Cuff and Edith Payne noted "incalculable" harm to the troopers' families if their identities are revealed. Therefore, the judges concluded, the troopers' privacy interests outweighed the need to hold open hearings.
Lee Moore, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office, declined comment this morning, saying the brief speaks for itself.
The woman's lawyer, Nat Dershowitz, said last month that he was appalled by the previous decision that questioned his client's credibility who maintains she never consented to sex.
The woman allegedly told police that the men may have believed the sex was consensual, according to police reports. She was not restrained, did not say no, or try to leave, she allegedly told police.
After the troopers were charged administratively, State Police Col. Rick Fuentes refused a request by troopers to close the disciplinary hearings.
