Judge Westbrook: "New evidence" would likely not change outcome.
A panel of appellate court judges has rejected incarcerated sex offender Rabbi Daniel Greer’s bid for a new trial, affirming a lower court’s ruling that “purported new evidence” introduced by the convicted predator lacked credibility — and was unlikely to change a jury’s verdict.
State Appellate Court Judge Dawne Westbrook explained that ruling on Feb. 27 in a 14-page decision co-signed by fellow Judges Melanie Cradle and Alexandra DiPentima, in the case Daniel Greer v. State of Connecticut.
The appellate court’s ruling affirms a November 2022 decision by trial court state Judge Jon Blue that Greer should not receive a new criminal trial for a 2019 case that saw a jury find him guilty of four counts of risk of injury to a minor. Greer is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, suspended after 12 years, for that conviction, which stemmed from his sexually attacking Eliyahu Mirlis, a former student at Greer’s Elm Street yeshiva.
In 2022, Greer and his attorney, David Grudberg, argued before Judge Blue that Greer deserved a new trial because of “new evidence” from Aviad “Avi” Hack, a former student and assistant dean at the yeshiva who also claimed to have had a sexual relationship with Greer.
In a July 2022 hearing, Hack testified that he believed Greer did not have sex with Mirlis until Mirlis was 16 years old. State statute defines a minor as being under 16.
Blue didn’t find Hack’s testimony credible. He also argued that, if anything, Hack’s testimony was more damning than exculpatory because Hack admitted that Greer had “groomed” him before Hack had turned 16. “[I]f the jury were to hear that [Greer] had previously preyed upon Hack, ‘grooming’ him prior to his sixteenth birthday, the likelihood of conviction would approach a near certainty,” Blue wrote in his November 2022 decision. “Defense attorneys ordinarily attempt to exclude evidence of previous sexual misconduct. It is the rare defense attorney who affirmatively attempts to introduce such evidence.”
Westbrook quoted that section of Blue’s decision in the appellate court’s own Feb. 27 ruling affirming that Greer should not receive a new trial.
“The petitioner, who had the burden of proof with respect to the petition for new trial, did not present any evidence corroborating Hack’s testimony,” Westbrook wrote.
In reviewing the trial court’s consideration of Hack’s credibility, Westbrook continued, “More importantly, in addition to noting a number of unreasonable inferences that Hack advanced in support of his statement that [Mirlis] could not have been under the age of sixteen at the time he was first abused by the petitioner, the court provided a number of reasons why Hack was not a credible witness. First, Hack admitted that he had acted to evade service of process in both the federal civil action and the state criminal action. He came forward with his current affidavit and testimony only after reaching a settlement agreement with the petitioner to resolve the action that the petitioner had brought against him in rabbinical court seeking to hold him liable for the $21 million federal civil judgment. In short, the court found significant issues regarding Hack’s credibility, further weakening the persuasiveness of his testimony and making it less likely that a jury would find his testimony credible.”
Westbrook concluded, “Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner’s purported
new evidence, which consisted wholly of Hack’s affidavit and testimony, would not, if introduced at a new trial, likely result in a different outcome. The judgment is affirmed.”
Click here to read the appellate court’s decision in full. Click here to read the other documents included in this appeal.