< Back to front page Text size – +

Judge vacates officer's restraining order on technical grounds

E-mail|Link|Comments () October 5, 2009 07:50 PM

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff

A Dorchester District Court judge today vacated a restraining order that a Boston police officer had filed against one of her colleagues, accusing him of raping her, then threatening her life, and the life of her husband.

Judge David Weingarten denied extending the restraining order against the officer after his accuser took the stand and withstood about two hours of withering cross-examination from the male officer's lawyer, Thomas Drechsler. Weingarten made his decision based on technical reasons, not the merits of the case.

The names of both officers are being withheld by the Globe. The newspaper does not name people who allege sexual assault, unless they agree to be identified. The name of the accused officer is being withheld because he has not been charged formally with a crime. The Boston Police Department is investigating the allegations.

During the cross-examination, the alleged victim acknowledged that she used her cell phone to call or text the other officer more than 100 times after the alleged assault took place. The female officer has accused her colleague of raping her twice the night of Aug. 25, then several times in the following weeks. She said she was coerced into the unwanted sexual relationship by the officer's threats. A sniper in the department's elite Special Operations unit, the officer allegedly said he could shoot her husband from 500 yards away and get away with it, the female officer has testified.

Drechsler said his client denies the allegations and that while he was glad the restraining order was vacated, he was disappointed he was unable to present even more evidence to bolster the case for his client's innocence.

Weingarten said that under the state statute for a restraining order, the female officer does not qualify as a plaintiff. Under the statute, the person seeking a restraining order must have been married to the perpetrator, lived with him or her, be related by blood, dated or have a child together.

The female officer said she is pregnant and that the father is the alleged rapist, but Weingarten said that being pregnant only a short period of time does not qualify them as having a child together.

"I'm trying to be as clear as possible that for the purposes of this statute, that the mere fact ... the straightforward fact of an early pregnancy does not qualify as having a child in common," Weingarten said.

The woman's lawyer, John Swomley, said he planned on going to Suffolk Superior Court tomorrow and seeking another way to keep the officer away from his client. Swomley said he also wants to pursue criminal charges against the officer.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, he said that what the public knows so far about the case is just the beginning.

"You will all know that this is one sick fellow," Swomley said.

Drechsler called Swomley unprofessional for insulting his client.

"I think that's really sad and pathetic that he feels he has to resort to calling names," he said. "Lawyers should engage in addressing the merits of the case."