© Michael Appleton for The New York TimesAfter the hearing on Tuesday, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, center, said in a statement that the criminal inquiry had been “a nightmare for me and my family.”
A prosecutor spoke first, quickly summarizing what had been obvious for weeks: the Manhattan district attorney's office had little confidence in its case, and even less trust in the accuser it had initially championed. A defense lawyer was next, saying simply, "We do not oppose the motion."
Then the judge spoke.
And just like that, the sexual-assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn was dismissed Tuesday, bringing an abrupt end to what had been a three-month episodic criminal investigation, each chapter offering a sensational twist on the underlying storyline: Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a man of international power and prestige, was accused of sexually assaulting an immigrant hotel housekeeper after she entered his suite to clean it.
The dismissal order issued by Justice Michael J. Obus of State Supreme Court in Manhattan brought some semblance of legal vindication to Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, after his stunning and embarrassing arrest more than three months ago. He was taken into custody on May 14 aboard an Air France jet at Kennedy International Airport, and then appeared disheveled and in handcuffs before news cameras.
After the hearing Tuesday, Mr. Strauss-Kahn issued his first statement since his arrest, characterizing the criminal inquiry as "a nightmare for me and my family" and thanking the judge, his own wife, Anne Sinclair, and family and other supporters.
He added, "Finally, we are obviously gratified that the district attorney agreed with my lawyers that this case had to be dismissed," and said he looked "forward to returning to our home and resuming something of a more normal life."
One of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, Benjamin Brafman, said he expected his client to go to Washington, where he and his wife have owned a home for several years, to straighten out some personal matters.
"Until today, it was very hard to plan Dominique's future," Mr. Brafman said, noting that the prospect of many months of preparation and trial had loomed large. "You can think about what you want to do, but you had the threat of prison hanging over your head."
For the accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, a 33-year-old Guinean immigrant, the result caps a precipitous fall. Prosecutors initially portrayed her as a credible and powerful witness, but then said that her myriad lies about her past - including a convincing, emotional but ultimately fraudulent account of being gang-raped by soldiers in Guinea - ended up undermining the case.
Ms. Diallo, who has made her identity public, still has a civil suit pending against Mr. Strauss-Kahn for unspecified damages. Her lawyer, Kenneth P. Thompson, has been relentless in his assertion that Mr. Strauss-Kahn forced his client to perform oral sex and that the office of the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., should have taken the case to trial.
After the hearing, Mr. Thompson said Mr. Vance "has abandoned an innocent woman and has denied an innocent woman a right to get justice in a rape case.
"And by doing so, he has also abandoned other women who will be raped in the future or sexually assaulted."
Mr. Thompson made one last attempt to keep the criminal case alive, filing a motion on Monday asking that Mr. Vance's office be disqualified. But about an hour before Tuesday's hearing, a court clerk handed out a one-page decision in which Justice Obus denied Mr. Thompson's motion.
Mr. Thompson appealed the decision, but an appellate judge struck down the appeal Tuesday afternoon, clearing the way for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, to return to France, though his lawyers said he would not head there immediately.
Mr. Vance has faced criticism from some black civic leaders and women's rights groups, some of whom protested outside the courthouse Tuesday morning. To them, the case represented an instance of a powerful, wealthy man getting away with something he did to a poor immigrant woman. They argued that Ms. Diallo's credibility problems should not have prevented Mr. Vance from allowing a jury to decide whether it believed her.
On Tuesday, Mr. Vance released a statement saying that his office was committed to protecting victims of sex crimes, even ones with "imperfect pasts."
"If we are convinced they are truthful about the crimes committed against them, and will tell the truth at trial, we will ask a jury to consider their testimony to prove a crime," the statement said. "If we are not convinced, we cannot, should not and do not take the case to a jury."
(Mr. Vance had planned a news conference in his office to answer questions, but shortly after he took to the podium, earthquake tremors were felt and the room was evacuated. Mr. Vance smiled and said to a member of his security detail, who was hurrying him out: "I'm O.K. O.K. O.K. I've been through earthquakes in Seattle all the time.")
Mr. Vance has sought to allay criticism of his decision through a 25-page report that his office filed with the court on Monday and through statements made by the lead prosecutor on the case, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, on Tuesday.
The prosecution's original report was about three times as long, but it was scaled back to provide only the details relevant to support the legal arguments and to spare Ms. Diallo embarrassment, a law enforcement official briefed on the case said.
"At the time of the indictment, all available evidence satisfied us that the complainant was reliable," Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon told Justice Obus. "But the evidence gathered in our post-indictment investigation severely undermined her reliability as a witness in this case, to the point where we are no longer able to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt."
Before that, Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon said the case "rises and falls" on Ms. Diallo's testimony because the physical evidence was not conclusive of a sexual assault and she was the only witness.
One of the more devastating instances in which Ms. Diallo lied came after prosecutors confronted her about where she went after the alleged attack, Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon said. Prosecutors disputed her account with independent evidence, Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon said, and she responded by denying that she had told them that.
"With three prosecutors, an investigator and a translator hanging on her every word, she said she never told us something that everyone in the room heard," Ms. Illuzzi-Orbon said. She added that prosecutors could not resolve the question of whether what happened between Mr. Strauss-Kahn and Ms. Diallo was criminal.
But Mr. Strauss-Kahn's team took the district attorney's actions to mean something else.
"Today the district attorney has told the court that it does not believe he is guilty," William W. Taylor III, one of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's lawyers, said in front of the courthouse. "What a turnaround. What a remarkable change in the life of a criminal case, and what a remarkable event, what a tragedy in the life of Dominique Strauss-Kahn."
While he commended prosecutors for investigating and ultimately dismissing the case, Mr. Taylor said, "There was a collective rush to judgment, not only by law enforcement, but also by the media."
Mr. Brafman added: "You can engage in inappropriate behavior, perhaps. But that is much different than a crime."
Still, the court of public opinion may not be on Mr. Strauss-Kahn's side. Amid a maze of metal barricades and news cameras, protesters outside the courthouse chanted slogans like "D.S.K., shame on you!" and "Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes, no means no!"
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter