By Ben Horowitz
The Star-Ledger
October 18, 2011
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/man_accused_of_killing_chatham.html
 |
| Jose Feliciano peeks from behind Balin Baidwan, one of his two defense attorneys, during a hearing Tuesday in Morristown. The hearing focused on whether Sister Catherine Morrisett could testify about her counseling of Feliciano. |
Former church custodian Jose Feliciano’s video-recorded statement that he stabbed a Chatham priest because he wanted to end an unwanted sexual affair will not be shown at his murder trial unless Feliciano takes the stand to testify in his own defense.
Morris County Prosecutor Robert Bianchi announced during a pretrial hearing this morning that the prosecution “will not be bringing that statement out in our direct case.”
Feliciano’s public defender, Neill Hamilton, sought permission to introduce the statement. But Judge Thomas Manahan, sitting in Morristown, ruled the defense may introduce the statement only if Feliciano testifies, because otherwise it would be “hearsay.”
Hamilton didn't say whether he would be bringing Feliciano to the witness stand, but he was clearly disappointed by the ruling.
Feliciano said he stabbed the late Rev. Edward Hinds of St. Patrick Church because the priest had threatened to fire him for ending a four-year sexual affair. Bianchi called that claim “a conglomeration of garbage” that was part of “an untrustworthy statement.”
Bianchi said letting Hamilton introduce the statement would be “legally incorrect in a monstrous way. If Mr. Feliciano believes that statement can be lobbed into this case and therefore he won’t have to testify, he will not have been properly advised.”
Manahan had previously ruled the prosecutor could introduce the confession that was part of an interview conducted by an investigator from its office.
However, it would be admissible for the defense to introduce it only to “bolster” its own case if Feliciano testifies, Bianchi said.
Hamilton argued for an exception to the rule against “hearsay” in this case. He cited a section of state law that says that because the confession went against Feliciano’s best interest, “a reasonable person would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.”
Hamilton said he is accepting the fact that Feliciano stabbed Hinds to death, but said it was a “passion/provocation manslaughter,” and not a murder.
However, Manahan pointed out, the statement does work in Feliciano’s interest, because it makes him look like he was reacting against being “an unwilling participant” in a homosexual relationship and “he wanted it to stop.”
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.