NJ: Judge allows two friends to testify that teen told them she had sex with teacher

Admin

MORRISTOWN — A Superior Court judge ruled today that the prosecution may use testimony by two witnesses who said a then-16-year-old student at a Paterson high school told them she had sexual relations with a teacher from Parsippany. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Consensual sex between a 44 year old and a 16 year old (with a crush)is such a horrible crime that hearsay evidence is allowed.
Give me a break, please.
What a crazy world where parents can’t possibly protect their children from being bombarded by sexual stimulus and yet it’s considered taboo (as defined by the state)
Heaven forbid if they yield to it’s temptations (outside of the state guidelines) they will surely be ruined for life.
Or maybe none of it’s true and just hearsay from a frivolous teen.

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

Let me get this right…if a teen girl claims to have had sex with a teacher to impress her friends when in reality she hasn’t, then potentially he could be convicted based on the testimony of her friends. This judge needs to be removed, pure and simple.

0
Reply
View Replies (3)

I’m looking at the two witness’ testimony statements and see a “Victim” whose story seems rather inconsistent. Probably a Victim of convenience when things don’t go her way. I would dismiss as she will probably find a way to manipulate our system again if she’s rewarded with an approval. If she lied to her boyfriend and friend to begin with, Who’s to say she isn’t lying now.

0
Reply