The hearing began with the judge stating that he would be granting the motion to vacate Weberman’s original sentence. Weberman had originally been sentenced to 103 years, but that sentence had been reduced by law to 50 years because of caps on incarceration. Weberman was then given an opportunity to address the court and his victim, who was present in court with her husband, her lawyer, friends, and advocates.  

Weberman read from a prepared statement saying that he was not there to revisit the past. He said that he stood ready to take full, unconditional responsibility for the harm he caused. He said that he had misused the position of authority that was given to him and had desecrated God’s name. Turning to his victim he told her that she deserved a protector, and instead he had violated her. He told her that she had done nothing to deserved what had happened to her, that she had been an innocent child.

He then said that his time served – 13 years – had paid his debt to her, and that he stood before the court as a changed man. He pleaded to his victim, saying that he wasa truly, and deeply sorry.

The ADA, Joe Alexis, then asked Weberman to be more specific about what he was apologizing for. He asked Weberman if he accepts that his victim was 12 years old, and Weberman said he didn’t remember exactly, but that she was a child. The ADA then asked Weberman what specifically he had done to his victim. Weberman said it was sexual abuse. When asked to be more specific, Weberman bristled, saying he didn’t want to get graphic. His family was sitting in the courtroom, including two of his children.

He said that he’d been in jail for 13 years and couldn’t remember the specifics well enough to graphically say what it was, but it was sexual abuse, and that he didn’t want to think about it.  The ADA asked him if he didn’t remember anything about it, and he said that he remembered what he’d said – that it was sexual abuse, but that he wouldn’t be using graphic language and it wouldn’t be true if he said it was this or that. The ADA asked him what he did remember. Weberman said “let’s call it sexual abuse.” The ADA pushed him, saying that Weberman kept saying that, but what did it specifically mean.

Weberman again, getting impatient, repeated that it was sexual abuse, inappropriate touching, inappropriate things, sexual abuse. The ADA then asked him if he had put his hands on his child victim’s breasts. Weberman said that he wouldn’t remember exactly how and where the abuse was. The ADA asked him if he was saying he didn’t remember if he did that. Weberman said that he would paint a picture of it, but not exactly say specifics, but that he knew what he did was wrong. The ADA cut him off and said he was glad Weberman was saying it was wrong, but pushed him again asking if Weberman had put his hands on his victims breasts while she was a child.

Weberman, who participated in the hearing remotely and had one lawyer with him and one in court, turned to the lawyer next to him instead of answering. His court lawyer objected saying this wasn’t an allocution, he was already convicted. The judge seemed upset at the games being plated and forcefully said that while Weberman didn’t have to say anything he can do what he wants, but that the judge had to decide where justice lay and that Weberman was making his job harder.

After a long pause, Weberman answered yes to the original question. The ADA then asked if Weberman had only said that because of what the judge said. Weberman said that it happened, he put his hands on her breasts. The ADA then asked if Weberman had put his hands on his victim’s buttocks. Weberman said he didn’t remember. The ADA, expressing credulity at that, moved on, asking Weberman if he had placed his hands on her vagina. Weberman said he didn’t really remember.

The judge, looking annoyed, said that he found it hard to believe that Weberman didn’t remember, but that they didn’t have to ask any more questions. The ADA asked to continue to make a record, and then asked if Weberman remembered putting his mouth on his victim’s breasts. Weberman said that he did. The ADA asked if Weberman had put her mouth on his penis. Weberman recoiled and denied doing that. The ADA remarked for the record that Weberman had said he never did that. Someone in the crowd audibly said “Baruch Hashem” and the court officer snapped at him to be quiet.

After a long pause Weberman admitted to putting his victim’s mouth on his penis. The ADA then asked where this had taken place, and after a short back and forth Weberman said that it had happened in his office. The ADA asked if Weberman’s victim had been his patient, and Weberman said that she wasn’t a patient because he wasn’t a rabbi, he was a rabbi and she had come to talk to him. The ADA followed up clarifying if she had come for counseling, and after another back and forth Weberman said that she had been coming for rabbinic counseling.

The ADA then asked if in addition to the crimes they’d already discussed he had also committed an additional crime in her home when he was laying in her bed with her. Weberman looked confused and disdainful, and took a long pause before asking if the question was if he had done anything in her home, and then answered yes. The ADA then pressed on, asking if he had rubbed his penis against her vagina while laying in bed. Weberman said no, and turned to his lawyer to talk briefly before asking for the question to be repeated. After a long pause he said yes.

After that tortured exchange, Weberman’s victim spoke.

She started out describing how Weberman wouldn’t flinch when he burned her. His need for control and power over a child, she said, turned him into a monster who had violated her body, her emotions, her soul, and her wellbeing as a child. That violation, she said, didn’t stop, but followed her into adulthood. The cruel psychological and sexual abuse was so severe, she said, that 10 years of therapy hadn’t erased the wounds. She said she was grateful to God for creating the life that she now finds worth living, but that she’d be lying if she said that in that life worth living she didn’t experience turmoil in such important areas of her life.

She said that she accepted that what she experienced may never go away, that the scars were too deep from the abuse she experienced while she was developing. The impact, she said, was woven into her developing soul. She then said that it was our responsibility to protect the public interest, to protect vulnerable children. She invited the judge to see the bigger picture, that this wasn’t just a case about one violated child, but about an older man who was well aware of what he was doing, and strategically placed himself in positions of power, including on the advisory board of her elementary school, taking an elitist place in the community as a member of the Malachim, and placing himself in a position of rabbinic authority in the community.

Additionally, she continued, placing himself as a counselor working without a license to work with children, teens, and vulnerable adults and couples, all arranged by himself to get access to not one but dozens of struggling children, teens, and adults. His highly regarded position, she continued, gave him authority of them, and there was no question he used his position to sadistically violate and control his victims for years.

Both throughout and after the trial, she said, she received many messages from women, girls, and men, all of whom were survivors of Weberman. Many, she said, came to the trial in quiet support, wishing to testify but barred by the statute of limitations. Other, she said, were still within the statute of limitations but were too scared to come forward because they had seen what the community had done to her, harassing her father, ostracizing her family, closing their businesses, throwing relatives out of yeshiva. They were scared they wouldn’t survive, she said.

Weberman, she said, matched the description of a God complex, behaving with a deep sense of control over others, using threats, coercing, and messing with the minds of children while sexually abusing them. His uncontained need for control, she said, led him to burn her while laughing, mocking her when she started to bleed as he penetrated her, utterly without care for the human being he was shattering.

This case, she said, was not the kind of case where a judge would be showing mercy to an innocent man suffering for a crime he’d long paid for. Weberman, she said, earned every moment of the 103 years, and even then, there was no doubt in her mind, she said, that there’s a specific place in hell for him and his supporters. Society, adults, this court’s obligation, she said, was to keep others, especially young, at-risk kids safe, and anyone turning a blind eye, or helping those dangerous to the public held deep responsibility.

The first sentencing, she said, was the first time she saw that perhaps the world was not corrupt, that maybe there was some justice and safety. Despite knowing, she said, that not everyone in the system was corrupt, it took only one judge to make a decision against the corruption and demonstrate an unwavering commitment to protecting children. She said she was well aware that God was the ultimate judge and that he has messengers. She said she was confident the honorable judge would consider this and choose to protect children above all.

In closing she shared one comment from researcher Carl Hanson who wrote an 2024 article about the likelihood of recidivism by the 5% highest risk sex offenders. They had the following features, she said: first, sexual deviance, and pedophilia. Second, antisocial traits, including engaging in a pattern of disregard for the wellbeing of victims without remorse. Third, manipulation, grooming, and controlling people to serve their power or interests through a deliberate process to build trust and gain control of people for the purpose of abusing them. Fourth, cross-age and cross-gender victimization. Weberman, she said, had all 4 risk factors, and was clearly in the highest risk category for offenders.

Many offenders, she said, have a low risk of reoffending, but the top 5% had over a 40% chance, and the top 1% had over 67% chance of reoffending. Weberman, she said, would continue to molest if released, especially due to the fact that he had and has community support, will be welcomed back, and will be trusted by the community. He may resume mentoring, she said. It would be a tragedy, she said, if someone else is back in front of the judge in 5 years describing similar abuse. Addressing the judge she said, you can prevent that.

Weberman’s video had cut out at some point toward the end of the victim’s statement, and it took a while to get him back. When he got back on, the lawyer with him said that the video had cut out in the middle of the statement. The judge asked if he wanted the rest of it read out from the court reporter. Weberman asked if it was very long and said he didn’t really care. The judge read out the portion of the statement that Weberman had missed.

Addressing the victim, the ADA said that she was remarkable in every regard, that she had survived unspeakable crimes while a child, and that her abuser was a fully grown man who had abused his position of power and authority to prey on her. He said that there were no words to describe the courage she showed during every moment of these crimes. Turning back to the judge the ADA said that they stood by the conviction, and said that candidly he had come to court with prepared remarks, but that he was going to deviate from them.

Weberman had read a prepared statement, he said, but when asked specific questions about what he’d done his memory failed, and he voiced a series of denials only to then eventually admit it. 103 years, the ADA said, was disproportionate, which was why they didn’t oppose the 440 motion. In preparing for the hearing, he said, they had reviewed sentencing for defendants convicted of similar crimes and the average time was between 15-25 years. The ADA said that he had been authorized to recommend 15 years but that he wouldn’t be doing that. Instead, he said, he would be leaving it to the court to determine an appropriate sentence between 15 and 25 years.

He followed by saying that the defense answers to questions saying he couldn’t remember was confusing to him because no one could forget something like that, and he found it troubling that Weberman had said he couldn’t remember. Especially, he continued, since Weberman’s victim could never forget them.

It should be noted that Weberman, in his brief, had been seeking a resentencing to 13 years, essentially the time he’d already served, and was hoping to be let out of jail today. The DA’s office authorizing the ADA to ask for 15 years was not much different. A sentence of 15 years, 13 and change of which had already been served, would have been immediately eligible for parole, so while they would put on a good show of pretending that they weren’t just rolling over and caving to Weberman, in fact they would be. Weberman could have been out within weeks if the sentence had been 15 years. Weberman took that away from himself by acting with contempt and sneering at the questions being asked by the DA about what he’d done to his victim.

Finally, Weberman’s court lawyer, Donna Aldea, argued against the recommendation made by the ADA. Her arguments largely centered around the sentence being disproportionate to other sentences for similar crimes committed in recent years. She referenced letters by a number of judges submitted along with the motion saying that Weberman’s sentence had been disproportionate, and brought up flaws in the arguments raised by the cases cited by the victim’s lawyer. She also fiercely contested the narrative that had been built around the additional victims who had come forward during the original trial saying that those were hearsay, and wondering out loud where they’d been for the last 10 years if there was any substance to their claims.

Weberman’s lawyer even went as far to cast doubt on the victim’s trial testimony saying that she had been unable to remember specific details about incidents while testifying and on cross examination. She then referenced the character letters submitted on behalf of Weberman, She concluded asking the judge to sentence Weberman to time served, a sentence proportional to other sentences in similar cases.

Weberman then spoke again briefly to reiterate that he took full responsibility for repeatedly sexually abusing his victim. He said he was really sorry that he didn’t answer right away, and that he’d been shocked by the questions.

Finally, the judge rendered his sentence. He started by saying that they were there to achieve justice, but that justice wouldn’t be done that day because there was no undoing the harm that had been caused. He said that he’d read in an article that there is perhaps no moment in the work of a judge more harrowing and morally demanding than sentencing, the moment at which he or she decrees the suffering of another person. Then again, he said, we can’t just look at justice as ideal because it is a weighty reality. The offender’s actions, he said, can’t be the final word. Where does justice lie?

Listening to everyone’s submissions, he said, it’s obvious to the court that the original sentence of 103, even as it was reduced to 50 years, is unduly harsh and severe even given the horrible physical and emotional betrayal. It doesn’t reflect a proportionate balance of justice, he said. Therefore, he continued, he sentenced Weberman to 18 years, plus 10 years of supervision, which he said remained a substantial and meaningful penalty that recognizes the seriousness of the offense, promotes and achieves respect for law, and is proportional.