Lionel Hutz meets Sideshow Bob in Rapetown

cavalloDefense lawyer/supervillain/accused bailbond fraudster Joseph Cavallo is included in a lawsuit by the Jane Doe victim in the Haidl Gang-Rape Case. He’s responded as expected; with threats and hints of blackmail. Meanwhile, it’s clear that L.A. Times’ columnist Dana Parsons has completely and permanently disgraced himself with his coverage. I know that columnists are more “personal” in their approach than daily news journalists, but letting your seething misogyny ruin analysis of a gang rape case that highlights the bizarre world of Orange County wealthy teens and reveals corruption and collusion all the way to the top of County government is… lame.

But back to Cavallo. Clearly, if he’s included in this lawsuit, then that little bitch is going to find out what happens when you fuck with Joe Cavallo! Why, he’s going to tell the ENTIRE SCHOOL what a SLUT she is, and she’ll never get to have lunch with the popular girls again! Dude, she was raped with a Snapple bottle and she’s after blood. I don’t think you can do much worse to her now. Go ahead and release your terrible revenge upon the town of Springfield.

Attorney vows SoCal sex assault victim will regret suing him

ASSOCIATED PRESS

1:50 a.m. March 20, 2006

SANTA ANA – The attorney for one of three young men sentenced to prison for the videotaped sexual assault of an unconscious teenage girl vows that the victim and her family will regret naming him as a defendant in a $26 million civil lawsuit.

“They’re going to rue the day they brought me into this case,” said Joseph G. Cavallo, who represented Gregory Haidl, son of a former Orange County assistant sheriff.

Haidl, 20, and co-defendants Keith Spann and Kyle Nachreiner, both 21, were sentenced earlier this month to six years in state prison stemming from the July 2002 incident.

The civil lawsuit filed in December by the victim, now 20, names as defendants her attackers, Cavallo and two defense investigators, John Warren and Shawn Smigel.

The victim, known only as Jane Doe, alleges that Cavallo and the investigators harassed and intimidated her by staking out her Rancho Cucamonga house, improperly obtaining her medical records and revealing her identity, among other things.

“We’re taking these people to task about what they did,” said her attorney, Sheldon Lodmer. “They crossed the line in terms of appropriate legal defense.”

Cavallo said he did nothing wrong. He denied Jane Doe’s claim that investigators screamed out her name at her new school and said they had to stake out her home to serve her parents with court papers.

He characterized the lawsuit as “revenge” and said that during the civil trial, his defense will include bringing up new information about Jane Doe’s past.

“By the time I get done with Jane Doe, the case won’t be worth $10. I know more about Jane Doe than her lawyer and her family,” Cavallo said.

Haidl, Spann and Nachreiner were convicted last year of 15 felony counts for sexually assaulting the then-16-year-old victim with lighted cigarettes, a pool cue, a Snapple bottle and a juice can as she lay nude and unconscious on a pool table at the home of Haidl’s father, who was not present.

During the criminal trial, Cavallo and other defense attorneys portrayed the victim as an emotionally troubled, promiscuous, would-be porn star who faked unconsciousness on the tape.

Lodmer said he anticipated Cavallo would attack his client.

“I’m sure he will use this opportunity, and she’s ready to stand up to it,” Lodmer said.

8 thoughts on “Lionel Hutz meets Sideshow Bob in Rapetown

  1. This guy sounds like a real jerk. However, the idea of a crime victim suing a criminal defense attorney makes me nervous. I don’t know enough about the particular situation to comment; but cross-examining the alleged victim is part of being a defense lawyer. If victims are allowed to sue because they were subject to cross-examination, then that pretty much undercuts the ability of any defense attorney to conduct a zealous defense.
    This guy may have gone way over the line. I don’t know.

    Like

    1. From my understanding, it was not the cross-examination she sued about but the activities of the law firm and its private investigators outside the court, e.g. staking out her house, going through her trash, stuff like that. I have no idea what the merit of the suit is.

      Like

Leave a reply to threepunchstuff Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.