Posted on 09/04/2007 2:49:22 AM PDT by Stoat
September 4, 2007 -- He got off - on a technicality.
Five times last year, porn actor and registered sex offender Kenneth Hoyt allegedly exposed himself and started masturbating on Manhattan subways - once in front of two 16-year-old girls.
But the whole bundle of misdemeanor charges - including seven counts of public lewdness, one count of indecent exposure and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child - were dismissed by a criminal court judge last week.
The reason? Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office missed the legal deadline for bringing the Hell's Kitchen perv to trial in a timely manner - by only four days.
ADA Amir Vonsover, who was the lead prosecutor on the case, conceded it was now too late to bring Hoyt to justice.
Hoyt left court smiling Thursday after his legal windfall. He declined to comment except to say he enjoyed the prospect of the District Attorney's Office being embarrassed by their snafu.
"That'd be good," he grinned.
Hoyt, who lives on Ninth Avenue at 49th Street, was arrested in 2003 and 2004 for prostitution, aggravated harassment and lewdness.
He has been a level-three registered sex offender since his 1986 California conviction for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Prosecutors had found seven women and girls who recognized Hoyt as the lewd exhibitionist who'd flashed them during subway rides on five days last spring and summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Please click on the article's link to read the full story.
The reason? Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office missed the legal deadline for bringing the Hell’s Kitchen perv to trial in a timely manner - by only four days.
Looks like the prosecutor’s office blew it. Since he’s a repeat offender maybe the next time he does it they will get him to trial in a timely manner.
He's a particularly arrogant and stupid one, so hopefully he will be caught before he hurts someone any more than he already has. From the article:
He was arrested after one of his alleged victims noticed that a porn Web site address was printed on the back of his jacket. She memorized the address, then checked it out. There she found her alleged flasher's name and X-rated pictures - leading to his arrest.
Or, better yet, perhaps he will meet with an "unfortunate accident" before he has a chance to harm a new victim.
If SOMEONE doesn't get fired over this, then something is TERRIBLY wrong. This is simply failure to do the job the prosecutor is hired to do.
But the whole bundle of misdemeanor charges - including seven counts of public lewdness, one count of indecent exposure and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child
Question: The reason why public lewdness, indecent exposure and endangering the welfare of a child are misdemeanors is what, exactly?
Yes, I know that it's because they don't cause immediate and lasting physical harm, but I think that it may be time to rethink such penalties for sex-related crimes.
“alleged”?
Agreed. Hopefully the NY Post will stay on this and bring regular updates. This is a travesty that can't be allowed to fade away.
I believe that the Press is required to use that qualifier when reporting on someone who hasn't been convicted.
But, as we all know, just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't mean that they're not guilty.
he looks TOTALLY normal /sarcasm
Yes, he has that pleasant, calm, chivalrous and intellectual demeanor, doesn't he? :-)
they should use 3 names for him, likely his middle name is Wayne or Lee
“Hoyt, who lives on Ninth Avenue at 49th Street....”
To me it looks like the author published the address and photo hoping that vigilantes would do what the courts refuse to do.
Not being a New Yorker, I don't know if that intersection has several huge apartment towers all 'round or not. If so, there might be thousands of people who could be identified as living at that intersection.
That being said, if not many people live there and he's found floating in a nearby river or harbor next week, I won't shed any tears.
Yes, finding them a nice new home on the moon or the surface of the sun would be fine with me.
The use of ALLEGE is not a requirement for newspapers, as is commonly believed. It means that something has been charged or claimsed without evidence or a final legal determination.
There is nothing stopping a newspaper from saying “the accused pervert,” or even drawing a reasonable conclusion, as long as there is no knowing of an untruth with intent to defame.
Many papers use “allege” in an attempt to “play it safe,” although even then they are not completely shielded from lawsuits, if they are not careful with the facts as they report them.
Many writers and writing instructors consider “allege” to be overused, and a sign or unimaginative and sloppy writing. For an example (with an amusing case), see:
http://www.newscript.com/allege.html
Where’s Paul Kersey when you need him?
Who ever needs Paul Kersey, whoever he is? If someone doesn’t have his own Wikipedia article by now, changes are that he is insignificant.
(I think he was the character Charles Bronson played in the “Death Wish” movies.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.