Jury to Get Case in Rutgers Webcam Spying Trial

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Jurors will begin deliberations Wednesday in the case of a former Rutgers University student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man.

Prosecutor Julia McClure told jurors Tuesday that Dharun Ravi told friends his roommate was gay almost as soon as he learned who his roommate would be.

The defense finished its closing arguments Tuesday afternoon after showing jurors a nearly hour-long video interview between police and Ravi. The statement Ravi gave a detective on Sept. 23, 2010, was previously shown by prosecutors.

Ravi faces 15 criminal counts, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. His roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge in September 2010, days after the alleged spying.

The judge is expected to give his instructions to the jury Wednesday morning before they can begin deliberations.

Defense attorney Steven Altman said Ravi was surprised to turn on his webcam and see his roommate in an intimate situation with another man. He emphasized that there was no recording, no broadcast and no YouTube video of the encounter.

The defense contends the first webcam viewing was not meant to invade Clementi’s privacy, but was set up to see what was going on in the room, which Ravi said he was shut out of.

“An 18-year-old boy, a kid, had an experience, an encounter that he doesn’t expect and didn’t know how to deal with,” Altman told the jury.

He added, “Who wouldn’t be curious? It’s your room.”

He also noted that Ravi had 45 minutes to spy on Clementi the second time, but didn't bother: "He didn't care," he said.

Ravi did not take the stand during the trial. Jurors heard about 30 witnesses over 12 days of testimony in the trial.

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.

Ravi posted a Twitter message that night that concluded: "I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

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.

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.

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 Monday that some of the charges are difficult because they have not been frequently tested by higher courts.

After jurors left for the day, 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.

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.


Comments [9]

Political Pop from america

Whats he goin to school for?

Mar. 14 2012 10:38 AM
John from Office

Fuva, you really have it in for this stupid kid. Show the same warmth you do for every cop killer and criminal african american.

Mar. 14 2012 09:37 AM
Pete from Northern NJ

What bothers me most about this is Ravi's apparent lack of remorse. IMO, if he came out in the beginning and stated that he was sorry for Tyler's death and that he wronged him we wouldn't be having this trial.

Mar. 14 2012 07:41 AM
new jersey from new jersey

He did something stupid, but thats NOT a crime.

Mar. 13 2012 11:12 PM
fuva from Harlemworld

Hey, Marsha, if he was concerned about his stuff -- for unfounded reasons (asking to have the dorm room alone with company is just not uncommon) -- then he should have (1) pointed the cam AT HIS STUFF and not at unsuspecting people, or (2)complained to an authority. The invasion of privacy here is a no-brainer...

Mar. 13 2012 05:49 PM
Marsha Livson

Hey, it was his room and his room mate kept asking him to leave without explanation. How did he know this guy wasn't going to take his electronic stuff? This whole thing is a sham because the media got hold of a story that involved homosexuality, death and kids. Oh, please....what a waste of time and money to prosecute this kid and ruin his life.

Mar. 13 2012 01:22 PM
fuva from Harlemworld

The potential criminality of immature, youthful acts has been legally established. What we must establish in society is the immorality and wrongness of Dharun's regard for and treatment of gays.

Mar. 13 2012 12:28 PM
fuva from Harlemworld

Please understand the case: Dharun is NOT being charged with Tyler's death. He is being charged with invading Tyler's privacy, based on bias. These he is guilty of.
He spied on unsuspecting victims who requested privacy. A second time, he invited others to join in, to make a spectacle of people he thought worthy of derision and humiliation because of what they were doing, which was homosexual.
Stupidity and young adult immaturity do not make criminal acts less criminal.

Mar. 13 2012 12:21 PM

It doesn't seem like the prosecution proved their case, which was pretty thin anyway. It may be that public sentiment *wants* it to be so, but this sure does not seem to be a hate crime. It seems more of the stupidity of youth with tragic consequences. The suicide victim took his own life, the accused did not kill him. As a survivor of two suicide attempts I can tell you that the idea to take one's own life is hugely informed by a profound sense of rejection and worthlessness, something Tyler Clementi was clearly struggling with prior to taking his own life, especially with the belief that his mother rejected him after coming out. Not to lay blame, but that belief is a much more profound influence on state of mind than the actions of a peeping roommate whom you barely knew.

Mar. 13 2012 11:41 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.