SHARE Ladmarald Cates Journal Sentinel files

By of the

Former Milwaukee police officer Ladmarald Cates, who is serving 24 years in prison for raping a woman after he responded to her 911 call in July 2010, will be allowed to personally cross-examine the victim during the trial in her civil suit, a federal judge has ruled.

The woman's attorneys had argued that allowing a convicted rapist to question the woman he assaulted would re-traumatize her.

Attorneys for the city said they believed the former officer should be able to question the woman.

In court records made public Sunday, U.S. District Judge Charles N. Clevert Jr. noted "that nothing in the record shows plaintiff would not be able to withstand cross-examination by Cates."

Robin Shellow, one of the woman's attorneys, said the victim, who testified against Cates during his criminal trial, should not be forced to face him in court again.

"The idea that a convicted rapist cop is going to be allowed to luxuriate in the retelling of his victim's pain is alarmingly reminiscent of Ted Bundy's excruciating cross-examination of Carol DaRonch during his first trial," Shellow said.

Assistant City Attorney Susan Lappen was not available for comment.

Although Cates has a right to put on a defense, the woman's attorneys had proposed he submit his questions in writing for either the judge or a member of the court staff to ask them. Clevert said he would not allow that.

The unusual set of circumstances arises because Cates is serving as his own attorney in the civil case.

In most civil rights cases, city lawyers represent police officers. But the city is not representing Cates, saying his bosses were not responsible for his actions the day he answered the woman's 911 call about her neighbors throwing rocks through her windows. He then raped her in her bathroom, according to testimony during his criminal trial. After she ran outside shouting that she had been assaulted, she was arrested.

Cates was criminally convicted in federal court of violating the woman's civil rights by raping her. Because a jury already has rejected his argument that the sex was consensual, the law prevents him from making that claim in the civil case. As a result, Cates will not be able to question the woman about the issue of consent, Clevert ruled. Cates will only be allowed to ask her about the impact the assault had on her and the extent of her injuries.

City lawyers, on the other hand, have argued that because neither the city nor the Police Department were parties to the criminal case, they should not be bound by the jury's findings — which would give them the latitude to argue consent during the civil trial, although they have not said whether they will do so.

Attorneys for the city and the Police Department also have argued that Cates was not acting "within the scope of his employment" at the time of the sexual contact, and as a result neither the city nor the Police Department should be held financially responsible for any violations of the woman's civil rights.

A hearing on those issues is scheduled for April 11. A trial date has not been set, and the judge "urged the parties to confer," according to minutes of a recent court proceeding. Those discussions theoretically could lead to a compromise regarding Cates' questioning of the victim, or they could result in a settlement, making a trial unnecessary.

Ian Henderson, director of legal and systems services at the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said he could not think of a case in which the perpetrator of a rape was allowed to question his victim.

Even without the added stress of being directly cross-examined by the rapist, court proceedings can be emotionally difficult for survivors, he said.

"They're in the same room with that person, and when you're talking about being on the stand, even if it's a defense attorney, the person is potentially making eye contact with the survivor, looking at them," Henderson said. "That questioning sometimes can be seen to be victim blaming."

Henderson credited the woman for coming forward to seek justice, both in the criminal and civil arenas. He also said he was glad the judge had made some effort to limit the topics Cates can ask the woman about.

Cates was fired from the Police Department in December 2010 for lying and for "idling and loafing" because having sex on duty is against department rules.

He was charged by the U.S. attorney's office after the Milwaukee County district attorney declined to charge him and was convicted in 2012.

Previous accusations

Cates had been accused of breaking the law five times before. Three of the previous allegations involved sexual misconduct — two with female prisoners and one with a 16-year-old girl. The alleged incidents date to 2000, three years after he was hired as a police officer.

As evidence that Cates wasn't the only officer not held promptly accountable for sexual misconduct, plaintiff's expert Lou Reiter cited former officers Michael Vagnini and Steven Lelinski.

Vagnini was among four officers convicted of crimes in connection with illegal strip and cavity searches in district stations and on the streets of District 5 from 2008 to 2012. Vagnini pleaded no contest to four felonies and four misdemeanors and was sentenced to 26 months in prison.

In March 2007, Lelinski was sentenced to 21 years and nine months in prison for sexually assaulting two women he met on duty. Allegations dating back to 1997 showed a pattern of similar behavior.

In a report filed on behalf of the city, Milwaukee police Lt. James H. MacGillis, program manager at the training academy, said this about Vagnini: "I find no cause, evidence or argument that former Officer Vagnini is or was a repeat offender, either of general rule violations or repeat sexual misconduct."

MacGillis also said he had at one time served as Lelinski's supervisor and had been informed Lelinski was under investigation, although he was not given details.

"I balanced my MPD training and my training on applicable laws to ensure the proper work performance of my employee were in alignment with the law and MPD objectives," he said. "Admittedly, a supervisor cannot be everywhere at all times."