E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLIVE VIDEO — Watch the closing arguments in the trial of a former Rutgers student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man.
Closing arguments in the trial of a former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man kicked off Tuesday with the defense attorney making the case that his client was a "kid," not a criminal.
The defendant is 20-year-old Dharun Ravi, who faces 15 criminal charges, including bias intimidation and invasion of privacy and seven charges that he covered his tracks. Closing arguments in the case began Tuesday.
Defense attorney Steven Altman said his client is a kid, not a criminal, and he emphasized that there was no recording, no broadcast and no YouTube video of the encounter.
"An 18-year-old boy, a kid, a college freshman had an experience, had an encounter that he wasn't ready for, that he didn't expect, that he was surprised by," Altman said of Ravi, adding that his client was not acting out of hatred of his roommate or gays in general.
"If there's hate in Dharun's heart, if there's ugliness in Dharun's heart," Altman, fighting a cold and speaking with an uncharacteristically soft voice, asked jurors, "Where's there some information and some evidence to support it?"
Prosecutors are expected to make their closing arguments later in the day. Jurors are expected to start deliberating by Wednesday, but they will have to wrestle with some relatively untested legal issues.
Ravi's randomly assigned roommate, Tyler Clementi, a fellow first-year student at Rutgers, committed suicide on Sept. 22, 2010 — three days after authorities say Ravi spied on him and one day after he's accused of trying to do it again.
The jury heard about 30 witnesses over 12 days of testimony in the trial. They did not hear testimony from Ravi himself, though they did see video of a statement he gave to police.
"It's my decision, yes," Ravi told the judge after the ninth and final defense witness testified.
Altman spent parts of his first hour poking holes in the credibility and memory of two of the state's key witnesses, both Rutgers students who said Ravi came to their room and showed them how to access video from his webcam.
There's no dispute that Ravi saw a brief snippet of video streamed live from his webcam to the laptop of a friend in her dorm room on Sept. 19, 2010.
The friend, Molly Wei, said Clementi and his guest — identified in the trial only by the initials M.B. — were fully clothed and kissing at the time.
The man told the jury he noticed the webcam. "I had just glanced over my shoulder and I noticed there was a webcam that was faced toward the direction of the bed," said M.B. "Just being in a compromising position and seeing a camera lens - it just stuck out to me."
Defendant in Rutgers webcam trial won't testify
Ravi posted a Twitter message that night that concluded: "I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Altman characterized that as an attempt to talk about something that surprised him - an example of immaturity, perhaps, but not a criminal act.
Later, Wei showed some other students. They said the men had removed their shirts, and that the webstream was turned off after mere seconds. Wei was initially charged, but later entered a pretrial intervention program that could allow her to avoid jail time and a criminal record if she complies with a list of conditions.
Two days after the first incident, Clementi asked for the room alone again.
Man seen kissing Rutgers student Tyler Clementi testifies he noticed webcam
This time, Ravi tweeted: "Yes, it's happening again" and "dared" followers to connect with his computer to video chat. There was testimony that he told one friend that there was going to be a "viewing party" at Rutgers. Asked by police, Ravi said it was a joke.
But there was no webcast. Ravi's lawyers say it's because he disabled his computer before Clementi had M.B. over. And witnesses placed Ravi at Ultimate Frisbee practice for most of the time he was asked to stay away from his room.
Judge Glenn Berman said on Monday that some of the charges are difficult because they have not been frequently tested by higher courts.
After jurors left for the day Monday, Berman made rulings on the instructions he will give them. But he wasn't fully confident that an appeals court would not view things differently, especially regarding the bias intimidation law. "I could be wrong," he told lawyers. "I said this statue to me is muddled. It could be written better."
The challenge for jurors could be deciding whether the laws apply to what Ravi is alleged to have done.
One of the invasion-of-privacy charges accuses Ravi of viewing exposed private parts or sex acts — or a situation where someone might reasonably expect to see them.
Another accuses him of recording or disseminating the images to others. There's no evidence that the webstream was recorded, and witnesses said Ravi wasn't there when Wei opened the webstream for other students.
Prosecutors build strong case in Rutgers webcam spying trial, analysts say
The bias intimidation charges could also be complicated. Ravi can be convicted of intimidation if he's also found guilty of an underlying invasion-or-privacy charge. Two of the four charges of that crime are second-degree crimes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Each of those charges says Ravi committed invasion of privacy — or attempted to — out of malice toward gays — or that Clementi believed he was targeted because of his sexuality.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Soldier accused in Afghan massacre could get death penalty
- Ex-porn actor fired from school allowed to seek teaching certificate
- Illinois officials upset with FEMA denial of disaster aid
- Hurt on the stairs: Child treated every 6 minutes
- New claims about Saudi who left US before 9/11
- Bison from Canada help repopulate 'Wild West'
Leave a Comment:
If the judge doesn't know the law for some of these charges because its muddled..no doubt the jury wouldn't understand it.
Be a slap on the wrists for most charges beside two ..if found guilty of any charge..it will be appealed of course and months from now back in court with a results of slap on the wrists again.
Waste of time and money. American justice system.
Actually the three primary charges - invasion of privacy, witness tampering and evidence tampering - are a slam dunk and will result in a prison term.
A 20 year old 'kid?' What a line of BS!
The defense attorney making the case that his client was a "
kid"...make that "p-u-n-k kid".Read the New Yorker article to get the facts of the case: Is this an intimidation-bias case? No. It’s a boorish young guy who’s got some tech know-how and a certain amount of uneasiness that he’s sharing a tight space w/ a gay man, and who seems peeved that he’s got to keep abandoning his room to his roommate's dalliances.
All of this amounts to Dharun being sent to another dorm room and possibly some kind of academic probation. Of course, Tyler’s suicide changes all this, but it really shouldn’t. No one will know why the young man killed himself, but I would bet it has much more to do w/his relationship w/his mother. Just a few weeks before Tyler says that his, “mom has basically completely rejected me.” The article mentions the T-shirt Tyler had made as a teenager that said “he loved his mommy.” Additionally, there’s passing reference to the George Washington Bridge being a place he and his mother had visited prior, and last Tyler calls and talks to his mother on the last day of his life.
Admittedly, this is pop psychology on my part. My larger point is that these kind of bias-laws are misguided b/c they attempt to adjudicate the manifold complexities of personal interaction. People do not need sensitivity training. Everyone needs de-sensitivity training.
A shame then that Ravi illegally invaded privacy and obstructed justice, eh?
"with the defense attorney making the case that his client was a "kid," not a criminal." And Clementi is just a dead kid, not a live one!!
So were the two boys at Columbine
Yah, he's a kid that decided to take his life...dont get it twisted barlow.
Whatever happens, remember this: someone took his life because of it.
remember this: he took his life, it was his choice...no one pushed him off that bridge
Remember bullying and intimidation ARE crimes and morally reprehensible. Ravi needs to return to India.
Just a kid? So were the Columbine shooters. what's their point?
their point is havi wasnt trying to kill this "kid"...what an idiotic comparison!
And he is not being tried for that.
Last time I looked 18 is an adult.
This is no "kid" - he is old enough to know right from wrong.
He was so VERY wrong.
Wrong enough he needs to be shipped back to India where his behavior might be acceptable.
Exactly. Eighteen is an adult, not a kid anymore.
Hmm, not according to the President. He just passed a law that "children" can stay on their parents Health Insurance until they are 26 years old. That makes the age of childhood officially 1-26 I would say...
Damn, you are hot though...
So you're saying that the US uses child soldiers? Isn't that a violation of international law?
The USA has always used "child soldiers". The average age of the fighting man in Vietnam was 19. Nineteen is a kid. President Obama says kids can stay on their parent's insurance 'til they turn 27. To me that says that at least he thinks that we don't enter adulthood until 27...
I don't know what charges will stick but 6-18 months seems appropriate.
If the kid was so disgusted and humiliated by his own actions maybe he shouldn't be taking it in the azz in the first place. If you find something repulsive and humiliating, don't do it.
You must be a "Christian."
What evidence is there that Clementi felt that way? You have no idea why he killed himself.
He did kill himself. He must have felt dirty or something right?
Nope I don't believe in god.
So how did you become such an ignorant homophobe? Did your parents teach you to be a bigot?
@skrekk; no probably self-taught.
@leroy2112; maybe you should believe it will work wonders for your compassion.
Neither family will win in this situation: one lost a son to suicide and one will lose a son to the justice system. I feel bad that the young man was desperate and lonely enough to take his own life: can you imagine feeling that alone? At the same time, eighteen year old men are just figuring out who they are. The tiniest bit of immaturity at this age and they get into the worst trouble because they are easily led into all kinds of stuff.
I am a little disgusted that the girl got off because it seems like she might have been egging the whole thing on. It might very well have simply petered out if it had been left alone.
How about he gets a job as a manhole inspector!!
Eighteen is a man. Not a kid. With this attitude it is no wonder 30yr olds are still living at home.
It's just a sad story.Us hetero guys find"it" gross,but wouldn't harm someone.I think this kids ' thought process is what you get nowadays.He didn't think about the consequences of his actions.
Speak for yourself. The rest of us hetero guys who are comfortable and confident in our sexuality have no problem with homosexuality.
How are you legal?I wouldn't lump myself w you who don't have that instinct.Theres something wrong w you too
Ok, when did using your own wed cam in your own room become spying. Sorry the *** killed himself must have realised he was total ****ed in the head and ended his sickness.
It becomes spying when you point the webcam at your roommates bed to watch him being intimate with someone after telling him that he could have the use of the room.
I feel sorry for Taylor. How upset and shaken one needs to be so that life becomes a burden? And his parents who I am sure are going through pain and anguish now, perhaps asking themselves where they missed… My heart goes out to them… Nothing can bring Taylor back. Even 10 years of jail for Mr. Ravi will not undo what was done. So let’s get real. Mr. Ravi did a stupid thing. Perhaps even he does not know why he did it. If stupidity was a criminal offense in this country, half of us would be in jail and another half on parole. So why is Mr. Ravi in court? Let’s consider some high-parenthetical scenarios. I am sure that many of us know or heard of similar situations: a high school or college jack recorded his sex act with a girl that though he was “the one”, showed it to everyone who asked, she became a laughing stock and committed suicide. I am sure it happened somewhere. Or a girl publicly humiliated a former boyfriend by posting his pictures/video in a compromising position, and the guy to “show” her and all of them committed suicide. Probably happened as well. Or thousands and thousands of pictures that flood the internet showing people and various private situations that I am sure many would want to remain private. Perhaps someone somewhere felt such humiliation and despair that it pushed him/her to commit a suicide. But did we hear about any charges or did their cases get any US media attention? Not that I know of. So what is the difference here?
Each of those situations you mention would be a crime. It doesn't matter if the victim commits suicide, by the way. Showing images of someone without their permission is a crime. If they are of a sexual nature, that becomes another crime.
Mr. Ravi committed a handful of crimes. Whether he thought he was committing a crime at the time is irrelevant, it is still a crime. Saying, "I didn't know" is not a defense. Ravi must have known that what he did was a crime, however, since he tried to tamper with evidence and with a witness.
Well then it seems that millions should be in jail. In fact Paul and Chris Weitz the directors of “American Pie” movie and Adam Herz, the writer, should be in jail as well, for incitement (remember the episode with a web-cam?). I understand that parts of this movie were shot in NJ. So perhaps the same prosecutor can start preparing the case when he is done here. I am not questioning Mr. Ravi’s guilt or innocence. The jurors will make their decision. What I am questioning is unequal application of law in this case. As you said, committing suicide (as said as it may be) is irrelevant. So why we are not prosecuting all these amateur photographers posting pictures that should remain private?
If someone cannot distinguish between reality and fiction, then they should be put away somewhere.
If someone posts a picture of someone without their permission, it is a crime. It will only be prosecuted if that individual presses charges. This isn't that complicated.
I don’t think you are correct. From what I gather in that case parents did not press charges, the State did. Placing one’s picture for public view without their permission is not a criminal offense as of yet, otherwise a whole tabloid industry would disappear. It can be basis for a lawsuit for damages. And the only reason this case is elevated to criminal is because Taylor was homosexual (bias intimidation). If Mr. Ravi was broadcasting a heterosexual encounter to watch it with anyone who wanted to, as disgusting as that sounds, the most those individuals could recover be compensation for damages in a civil case. What Mr. Rave has allegedly done is disgusting and immoral. But is we as a society decide to make it criminal, it should be criminal independently of victims sexual orientation, color, religion, political views, or any other characteristic that one can find.
Hello! It is a crime! It has been a crime for many years! Look it up! Celebrities can't sue tabloids for the pictures they run because the celebrities are out in public in those pictures, where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In instances where tabloids cross the line, like when they took pictures of Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow naked at their home in the 1990's, celebrities can sue too. There is no allegedly in the case of Ravi. He admits to using the webcam, he just denies that it was to spy on Clementi. He has given a few different excuses, such as he thought his possessions would be stolen or he thought that Clementi's date was "sketchy". Neither claim holds water, though. If he was watching his stuff, then why was the webcam pointed at Clementi's bed and not at Ravi's stuff? If he thought Clementi's date was "sketchy", then why didn't he say something to Clementi? Both stories go out the window when you look at the fact that he was setting up a viewing party for Clementi's next date. What Ravi did is criminal regardless of Clementi's sexual orientation. The only charge that Clementi's sexual orientation is relevant to is the bias intimidation charge. Invasion of privacy, tampering with evidence, and witness tampering are crimes regardless of Clementi being a homosexual.
In fact the underlying crime is entirely independent of those factors. But the penalty enhancer applies if the motives for the crime involve a desire to target a protected class, just like we graduate the penalties for most crimes based on intent. The victim's actual identity in that protected class is irrelevant - black, white, male, female, gay, straight, bi, etc - the only thing that matters is the perp's intent to target someone based on their perceived membership in a protected class.
He'll grow up soon enough and learn that there are consequences to his actions. Hope it was worth is funny guy!
Fact: Those that homophobic will find every and any reason to justify what this "kid" did. Those that understand the moral and legal ramifications will see a need to prosecute him.
Sorry does not pass the smell test. The Kid or adult what ever you want to call this guy is possibly an in the closet *** since he wanted to watch his roommate make out with another ***. Since I know Homophobic people do not even want to see that type of ****. I for one know full well that if I was roomed with a ***, I would not want to watch it or even hear it. So for this guy to uses his wed cam to watch two ***s going at it, means this guy is a *** too and not a Homophobic person.
Science has an explanation for Leatherneck's condition:
skrekk: Sorry looked at your link but fails to say who conducted the test or how they really went about to find this is the true definition of a Homophobia.
Sorry I just don't like ****.
So I could careless what your liberal idiot site stated what homophobia is too bad that definition is not found anywhere except in a *** loving site.
It's built in regardless of what psychologists findings.It is gross and Most of us [pablo] find it revolting
People who are secure in their own sexuality aren't usually bothered by other people's sexuality. If you find yourself thinking a lot about what gay folks do in the bedroom, you might not be straight.
One of the charges against Ravi is invasion of privacy. It wouldn't matter if his roommate was straight, gay, bisexual, a man or a woman. If you followed the trial, its clear that he placed the webcam to spy on his roommate. Its also clear that he intended to humiliate his roommate; he did so by sending out tweets inviting people to iChat with him at a specific time. He's guilty of invasion of privacy and he should be punished for it.
Right,why didn't i think about that.you are a fool at best if you believe that. I am tolerant to a limited degree of what is revolting.I can pick up dog poop for instance to remove it.That implies alo you have evidence of all people,not just in studies,indicating this is entirely accurate,It isn't obviously.
So a mentally unstable, homosexual kid kills himself. Who cares? If this was a normal, heterosexual boy who killed himself, it would not be getting any media attention.
If he were heterosexual, Ravi wouldn't have used his webcam to watch him.
i have been reading about this case everyday and while i think he did invad clementi's privacy i don't think it was a "gay" thing...i feel so sorry for all of the involved families but i also think clementi was not comfortable w/ him self...and said to say may have done what he did somewhere down the line...i think the defedant is going to be the poster boy for issues of all the "tech" stuff going on w/ people these day..too sad for all of them
What 18 year old young vibrant man wants to sit around a dorm room, with a chick no less, and watch two men make out? His favorite movie must be Brokeback M. Hetero young men that age would find that repulsive not something to tweet "I saw them make out,Yay!". Ravi is gay or in the very least bi-curious. Has nothing to do with the charges but it would've been more honest for the defense to introduce his state of mind to garner empathy for him. I don't buy he's just a kid and had issues with having to leave his room. That doesn't make you want to set up a webcam to watch two men make out. Guilty or not, he won't, or the rest of the world, won't put this behind him (pun intended). He's a peeping tom at best and a repressed bi-curious/gay peeping tom at worst.
Ruh-roh.....looks like Ravi was convicted on all the primary charges of invasion of privacy, witness tampering and evidence tampering, and was also convicted on several of the bias intimidation charges.
He'll be lucky to get just 10 years.