The Future of Lakewood

[S209]

BREAKING: Rabbi Eisemann will be granted a new trial! BH

Against all odds R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s advice is slowly proving prophetic.

[imayid2]

Any indications if the prosecution will go for a retrial?

[Sammy82]

Against all odds R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s advice is slowly proving prophetic.

What was that?

[dasmo801]

Wow!
חסדי ה'

[imayid2]

Against all odds R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s advice is slowly proving prophetic.

It’s eerie. And from what I hear Rabbi Eisemann has internalized that havtacha, he’s been radiating מנוחת הנפש throughout the entire ordeal.

[avromie7]

he’s been radiating מנוחת הנפש throughout the entire ordeal.

100%. He looks like he doesn't have a care in the world.

He said everything his father taught him about bitachon is coming to good use.

[imayid2]

So… Where’s the party?

[yuneeq]

Baruch Hashem!

Any indications if the prosecution will go for a retrial?

Think we'll need to see the decision to determine that

[Yehuda57]

Anywhere that has a cliff notes version of this story?

[YitzyS]

Here's some info:

Indeed, the judge granted a new trial for BOTH of the reasons - the new evidence AND the Brady violation. This is important because should the prosecution try to appeal this decision, they would have to prove that the judge was mistaken on BOTH of those aspects.

The judge seemed to assume that the prosecution will proceed to a new trial. He even scheduled a date for a pre-trail conference (on August 9).

[YitzyS]

Anywhere that has a cliff notes version of this story?

State went after Rabbi Eisemann claiming he stole money from the government that was meant for his special needs school. Jury acquitted him in trial, but convicted of two secondary charges. The convictions of those two counts were only possible after the judge change the rules mid-trial, and were not really possible without a conviction on one of the primary charges, but the judge allowed the convictions to stand.

Being that the judge realized that Rabbi Eisemann was essentially innocent, he sentenced him to 60 days in jail. The prosecutor however appealed the sentence, and the appeals court (which completely misunderstood the basic facts of the case) ruled that he should be resentenced by a new judge.

Before the case went for resentencing, the defense filled a motion for a retrial after a new witness came forward to say that she was the bookkeeper that made the entry at the center of the case, and it was not Rabbi Eisemann. Furthermore, she said that it was a basic accounting error, and the entry was not backed by actual money, and was therefore not a criminal act. During the briefing exchanges on this motion, the prosecutors revealed that they knew BEFORE the trial that this bookkeeper was the responsible party. The defense then filed a second request for a retrial saying that the prosecutor withheld crucial evidence.

Today, the judge granted the motion for both reasons, thus vacating the convictions and allowing a new trial on those two counts.

[Dawie]

What was that?

"Du vets puter zein fun mishpat"

(and he repeated it because a family member wasn't convinced)

[Yehuda57]

State went after Rabbi Eisemann claiming he stole money from the government that was meant for his special needs school. Jury acquitted him in trial, but convicted of two secondary charges. The convictions of those two counts were only possible after the judge change the rules mid-trial, and were not really possible without a conviction on one of the primary charges, but the judge allowed the convictions to stand.

Being that the judge realized that Rabbi Eisemann was essentially innocent, he sentenced him to 60 days in jail. The prosecutor however appealed the sentence, and the appeals court (which completely misunderstood the basic facts of the case) ruled that he should be resentenced by a new judge.

Before the case went for resentencing, the defense filled a motion for a retrial after a new witness came forward to say that she was the bookkeeper that made the entry at the center of the case, and it was not Rabbi Eisemann. Furthermore, she said that it was a basic accounting error, and the entry was not backed by actual money, and was therefore not a criminal act. During the briefing exchanges on this motion, the prosecutors revealed that they knew BEFORE the trial that this bookkeeper was the responsible party. The defense then filed a second request for a retrial saying that the prosecutor withheld crucial evidence.

Today, the judge granted the motion for both reasons, thus vacating the convictions and allowing a new trial on those two counts.

Thanks! Sounds nuts. Why didn't the defense know about the bookkeeper before the prosecution? Surely they should have known it was her mistake?

[YitzyS]

Thanks! Sounds nuts. Why didn't the defense know about the bookkeeper before the prosecution? Surely they should have known it was her mistake?

The entry the bookkeeper made only pertained to one aspect of the minor counts, which - until the judge changed the rules at the last day of trial - were dependent on the primary charges. Additionally, the prosecutors only shared on the second day of trial which transactions they alleged were criminal. (The indictment was for financial facilitation, which means two criminal transactions. They did not write which of the 63,000 transactions were the criminal ones until the trial began.) After the trial started, it was difficult to track down who made the entry, which was only a minor part of the case before the rule change.

[yelped]

APP article is still so biased, even though just from knowing nothing about the case and reading the article, it seems obvious to anyone that the state is barking up the wrong tree.

[YitzyS]

https://matzav.com/justice-schi-founder-rabbi-osher-eisemann-granted-new-trial-after-convictions-are-vacated/

[Dawie]

APP article is still so biased, even though just from knowing nothing about the case and reading the article, it seems obvious to anyone that the state is barking up the wrong tree.

The APP is how we got here in the first place
and the machshefa reporter is now down in AZ...

[Baruch]

1) Can the prosecution appeal this decision?
2) Now, that he was declared innocent of the main charges, how would the prosecution possibly build the case for the secondary charges in a new trial?

[YitzyS]

1) Can the prosecution appeal this decision?

I believe they can, but I'm not certain. At Friday's hearing, the prosecutor made some objections for the record, which would indicate that he can appeal it.

2) Now, that he was declared innocent of the main charges, how would the prosecution possibly build the case for the secondary charges in a new trial?

This is an excellent question. I actually believe that this may cause the case to be entirely dismissed without going to a new trial, but only time will tell what for sure will happen.

[Euclid]

The APP is how we got here in the first place
and the machshefa reporter is now down in AZ...

He was only charged because of the APP?