Ann Arbor pediatrician pleads no contest to felony peeping charge
A veteran Ann Arbor pediatrician who investigators said watched out his bathroom window as a 12-year-old neighbor changed her clothing in her walk-in bedroom closet pleaded no contest Tuesday morning to a felony charge of surveilling an unclothed person.
Dr. Howard Weinblatt, 65, who has resigned from IHA Child Health - Ann Arbor, entered the plea during a brief hearing in 14A District Court in front of Judge Kirk Tabbey.
Weinblatt
A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but is treated as such at sentencing. Weinblatt faces up to two years in prison when he is sentenced March 6 in front of Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Donald Shelton.
Ann Arbor police said they arrested Weinblatt Nov. 22 after he watched out his bathroom window in the Burns Park neighborhood on four occasions in October while the girl changed her clothes. The girl has been a patient of his since she was born.
On one of the occasions, police said, the girl's mother used an iPad to record a video of Weinblatt peeping while he appeared to be masturbating.
Weinblatt was facing three other counts of surveilling an unclothed person and two misdemeanor counts of window peeping. Two of those surveilling counts and both peeping counts were dismissed on a motion by prosecutors.
Under a plea agreement, a third surveilling count was dismissed in exchange for the no contest plea. In addition, as part of the deal, prosecutors have agreed not to bring further charges against Weinblatt in relation to the investigation.
Weinblatt's attorney, Tom O'Brien, declined to comment after the plea hearing.
Amy Middleton, a spokeswoman for IHA, said in a statement, "We are obviously deeply distressed by this situation and the impact it has had on so many members of our community, our patients and our staff. The IHA Board took this matter extremely seriously, as it wanted to demonstrate that IHA has gone above and beyond in its efforts to ensure the safety and welfare of each of our 263,000 patients. Immediate steps were taken when these personal allegations against Dr. Weinblatt were first raised by placing him on an immediate leave of absence...We are saddened by these events and have taken every possible step we can think of to demonstrate we have our patients' best interest at heart...and we do."
Weinblatt has been licensed to practice medicine in Michigan for more than 34 years and his license will automatically be suspended because he was convicted of a felony, state licensing officials said. After his license is suspended, a hearing will be held to determine the next step, said Sherri White, a department manager in the Allegation Section of the Health Investigation Division of the Bureau of Health Professions.
As a result of the conviction, Weinblatt must register annually for 15 years on the state Sex Offender Registry. However, because of the nature of the offense, Weinblatt will be listed on the non-public registry, which is available only for law enforcement purposes.
Weinblatt is out on a promise to appear in court.
Read previous coverage of the case.
Comments
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.
YpsiVeteran said this on on November 29th in the comments and they were right. "People who have this problem often have a complete disconnect between their day-to-day lives and their "little secret." They often function at an extremely high level for years, giving no indication of any issues. He could easily be the caring, competent, trusted professional and be guilty of these charges at the same time. The fact that he has no comment is huge. Innocent people don't decline any opportunity to proclaim their innocence. They just don't. People who've been seeing him for years may have to come to terms with the idea that he was hiding a darker side."
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
Good Morning, AnnArbor.com... Thanks to an A2.com commenter last night, almost 12 hours ago, those of us who live and work in A2 found out new information about the doctor. Where's your new front-page story? This new information FREEP has found should be news in our LOCAL A2.com.
Scylding
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.
With you all the way. A2.com got scooped.
sHa
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
I am wondering the same thing. Was the information about the Dr.'s computers possibly "leaked" to the Freep; if not, why is AnnArbor.com ignoring it?
Cash
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 10:47 a.m.
<a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say</a> Nuff said
aawolve
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.
One disgusting aspect of annarbor.com's journalistic practices is these cases where it's not a matter of the Detroit Free Press having more resources, but a matter of annarbor.com's staff not bothering to ask the obvious pertinent questions.
nicole
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:21 a.m.
The complete evidence was not in until today. I don't see why anyone should be ashamed for having "stuck up" for the doctor. He has saved many children's lives, by testimony of many mothers in these comments and the comments on several past articles. And he had no prior record. So all you self-righteous ones can pipe down.
ann arbor mom
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
I agree with you Nicole, I won't apologize for standing up for someone who you have always known to be a good and decent person. The people who comdemned the doctor were only expressing their opinions as well, even with having no interactions with this man. I am very saddened by the recent information.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2 p.m.
Even if they "stuck up" for the doctor after he pled "no contest" and said he was framed?
tourettes_time
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:48 a.m.
your previous comment, "he was framed" was a fairly bold statement for someone lacking "complete evidence". take your own advice: don't weigh in until you know the facts.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:41 a.m.
Based upon the alleged computer images, the plea agreement is now not only unsurprising, but likely sound strategy by defense attorney Tom O'Brien. The fact of the felony guilty plea may deter the initiation of a federal investigation as the FBI and Office of United States Attorney are always very busy and would likely defer to the prosecution of Brian Mackie's office as sufficient and forgo the allocation of resources of what would be certain to be a hotly-contested and time-consuming federal probe. It also frees up Brian Mackie's office from what would have been a long and drawn-out prosecution that would have likely caused much stress on the alleged victim and her family. In a nutshell, it allows everyone to move on.
tourettes_time
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
I should rephrase that. His conviction makes her a victim in the eyes of the law. Your opinion does not change a definition.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:05 a.m.
No, in my opinion, she had no "reasonable expectation of privacy" while located in an unshaded window and is therefore not a "victim" of a violation of the law in question. The facts alleged do not constitute a criminal offense as I see it. Dr. Weinblatt could have gotten into a legal fight over the charges and got much if not all dismissed by the judge and Mackie could have attempted filing pornograhy charges and got into another huge legal fight that could have gone on for years.
tourettes_time
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:46 a.m.
I believe his conviction makes her a victim, rather than an "alleged" victim.
OnTheRight
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:38 a.m.
One big question that hasn't yet been answered is whether that part of the plea deal protecting Weinblatt from further charges will end up hiding or sweeping other victims under the rug. If he had sexual pictures of kids, can we be assured that the photos aren't of any of his patients or additional kids that may have been victimized? If my child was one of his patients, I would want to be assured by the police that there aren't photos of my kid on his computer and that his plea deal wasn't made to protect him from being held accountable for other crimes against children. That being said, in light of the significant amount of child porn on Weinblatt's computer, this community should be grateful to the AAPD and prosecutor's office for persevering in their investigation and prosecution of this previously well-respected community member. Those who "knew" that there was no way that Weinblatt would have such impulses; who villianized the victim's mother for videotaping the "innocent" neighbor as he gazed out his window in the direction of her unclothed child; who suggested that Weinblatt's constitutional rights had been violated, making him the real victim; and who wrote comments that almost gleefully anticipated Weinblatt's exoneration, predicting a successful, big-dollar civil suit against the City and the girl's family, should take a few minutes to reevaluate their preconceived ideas about sexual predators. It must be devastating for many people to realize that a man who they trusted with their children could have such a monstrous side. However, it is a painful reminder that predators hide in plain sight. In this case, obviously the authorities took the mother & child's accusations seriously and weren't afraid of criticism for investigating a well-respected physician. For the sake of those who come forward with abuse allegations and are proven to be actual victims, more of us should consider being open-minded as well.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
Despite the "armchair lawyer's" remarks on here I am in total agreement with what you have said. The community needs to take a good hard look at itself and realize that this is how this crime is allowed to happen in the first place. You have described the scenario of what went on here perfectly.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:54 a.m.
I am still critical of the AAPD and County Prosecutor's office. If they had not arrested and charged him prior to reviewing the contents of his computer they could have possibly charged him later on child pornography violations and had a better shot at obtaining a more favorable plea agreement. They would have had more leverage to negotiate possible prison time. The defense had outstanding motions to dismiss and could have attacked the legality of the search warrant, so the case was no slam dunk for the prosecution. This doctor has never been accused of ever abusing a patient in 34 years of practice and I fail to see how looking out of one's own window is a form of child abuse or a criminal offense. Mackie's office charged the defendant inappropriately and is making a plea agreement that will likely ensure no prison time.
TylerB
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:01 a.m.
Fatkitty for the win!! "Perhaps the search and seizure of 4 computers, a hard drive and thumb drive from Dr. W's home revealed incriminating evidence."
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:57 a.m.
Several points I would like to make on the Free Press article. Firstly, Dr. Weinblatt's attorney denies that the computer images originated with the user and Steve Hiller of the County Prosecutor's office stated there was only "a robust suspicion" that the images did originate with the doctor. Additionally the police would have to prove that only Dr. Weinblatt had access to that computer. Kind of like the Casey Anthony case. The images themselves must also be legally found to constitute pornography that is not protected under the First Amendment. Secondly, there are search and seizure issues under the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause that the defense could have raised to suppress from evidence the fruits of the seizure of the computer as there was no evidence the peeping involved any computer usage and hence no probable cause support issuance of a warrrant to search a computer. Thirdly, while the plea agreement with the County Prosecutor bars further criminal charges by that office, it cannot prevent the FBI and Office of United States Attorney from initiating thir own investigation of possible violation of federal pornography statutes - and those defendants having federal child pornography convictions face very steep sentencing guidelines as far as prison time - so to the extent that those who believe that Dr. Weinblatt did something improper with his computer still have the hope of a stiff prison sentence if such a federal investigation occurs and he is ultimately found by a court to have violated such federal laws. Dr. Weinblatt is still entitled to a presumption of innocence as to everything but the sole count he has thus far convicted of.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:30 a.m.
@Tourette's Time: But having not seen the materials the County Prosecutor claims to have from Dr. Weinblatt's computer, you cannot determine whether orr not it constitutes pornography or , specifiacally child pornography. Remember, law enforcement officials in the case of Congresssman Weiner last year tried in vain to find images that would violate pornography laws but were unsuccessful.
tourettes_time
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:16 a.m.
Child pornography is not protected under the first amendment: It is a federal crime to knowingly possess, manufacture, distribute, or access with intent to view child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2252). In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws criminalizing the possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography. As a result, a person who violates these laws may face federal and/or state charges.
tourettes_time
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:46 a.m.
Looking out your window is not a crime. Looking out your window and watching a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL change clothes is a crime. A pedophile is a pedophile, whether he/she is peeping into kiddie windows, or in the comfort of their cushy office chair. Child pornography is illegal in all forms, and anyone defending the right to take it a step beyond the computer strictly because he was "in his own home" needs to seriously reevaluate their morals.
myopinion
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:56 a.m.
Amen!
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:17 a.m.
Does the punishment fit the crime in this case? I don't believe it does. Having child pornography on your computer should be punished more severely in my opinion. He will not even be on the public sex offender list. Plea bargains have gone too far.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:35 a.m.
The feds are not bound by a state court plea agreement. That possiblilty is there and will be there whatever Brian Mackie does or does not do in this case.
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:30 a.m.
Yes, this plea deal stinks now that we know what they found...It obviously matters if you are a prominent member of the community when plea deals are struck. ~ No charges for what they found on the computer ~ 2 counts of window peeping dropped ~ 3 counts of survelling dropped ~ Only registered on a private sex offender registry
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:09 a.m.
A2.com: Where's a new front-page story, please? FREEP's got some new information that needs to be reported. Thanks.
mcdunnough
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.
Those of you who supported this person, where are your comments now? Where do you stand on civil liberties and the rights of people to do what they want in their own home? <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab</a>|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Those of you who supported this person should be, seriously, ashamed.
ann arbor mom
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.
No shame here, we did not know the facts and neither did you. We all had a right to our own opinions. I had known this person to be a good and decent man. I am not ashamed for thinking he was innocent but instead very sad about the recent information. I am a strong advocate that all children should be loved and cared for. Child abusers and porn addicts make me sick!
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.
I still oppose his prosecution on the charges presented. It sets a dangerous precedent if we charge citizens for staring out of their own window. If there are crimes involving child pornography - then let them charge on that.
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:04 a.m.
Thanks, mcdunnough! Your early comment back in November was spot-on!
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:42 a.m.
<a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab</a>|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE "Police found more than 100 pornographic pictures that appeared to show children and teenagers on computers seized from the home of an Ann Arbor pediatrician, a report released today revealed."
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
Just saying actually posted this at 9:23 PM on January 25, 2012 as a reply to another post. "Maybe you should look at the latest Free Press.... Enough said!" They are the one's who saw the article in the Free Press.
myopinion
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:08 a.m.
Thank you again for posting this.
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:55 a.m.
Thanks, justcurious, for your diligence in keeping us informed. Shocking article!! FREEP: "108 images -- some of child pornography and some appearing to show teenagers, links to pornographic websites featuring teenagers and receipts and passwords for pay-porn sites -- including one named Teen Dreams, according to the police report."
SPIKE ROBERSON
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
Whether this man is a pedophile or not, nobody should face charges for looking out their own window. If you or your child dress and undress with the curtains open, that's on you. If there was other evidence of a more serious offense then perhaps that should have been prosecuted, but I am astounded that anyone could be prosecuted for looking out their window regardless of what they were looking at.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:44 a.m.
Read the Free Press article.
Roadman
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 12:22 a.m.
I agree 100%. In Nazi Germany, you could face prison time for listening to a foreign radio station in the privacy of one's own home.
ann arbor mom
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 7:26 p.m.
I used to take my kids to CHA and found Dr. Weinblatt to be one of the most amazing doctors I have ever known. He truly cared for his patients and their families. We changed practices when the values of that practice changed we became a number there with all of the new doctors and rude office staff. At one point we almost lost my 3 year old son because of one of the nurse practitioners negligent treatment of his health. I feel deeply for evryone involved and none of us know the truth. We should not condemn someone, we don't have the right. I, as a mother hate without question, all child molestors. I also know that sometimes a person is wrongly accused and it ruins there life especially of this type of crime. If the prosecution has the proof that some of you speak of, they should not accept a plea of no contest and insist that justice be served. Maybe there is no such proof???
ann arbor mom
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
Very sad about the recent article regarding Dr. Weinblatts computer!
just sayin
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:23 a.m.
Maybe you should look at the latest Free Press.... Enough said!
nicole
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 9:17 p.m.
So well said! Thank you.
myopinion
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
On the contrary, no contest plea basically says that although you don't admit that you are guilty, you agree that the evidence looks pretty bad and that you would be found guilty, so this way you do a plea bargain to get some charges dropped and a lesser sentence without having to go through a trial.
BhavanaJagat
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 6:33 p.m.
Man is a Moral Being : It takes courage and conviction to give this consent and accept punishment. I see the victory of the true human nature of this person who won his freedom by knowing his actions and not opposing the consequences. It indeed speaks well of this person and I extend my best wishes for his peace and happiness.
Diane
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
Yep, that's what you said yesterday.
Lily'sMom
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 8:47 a.m.
I should have commented earlier in order to give an additional perspective. This is ONE case involving ONE doctor. Today is the anniversary of the breaking of the initial story that found pedophile priests were, for years, sexually assaulting children in their charge. Hundreds of priests have been involved and many countries around the world are just now beginning to deal with these issues. Now imagine all of their parishioners refusing to believe their priest could ever even think of committing such a horrible sin. And there were hundreds of angry Catholics blaming the children for making up the stories. To this day, after many, many priests have been found guilty (the investigations continue), there are still parishioners who blame the children and refuse to believe the charges against their priest. There have even been cases of parents believing their priests over their own children. And, unfortunately, there are still many higher-ups in the Vatican who are complicit and have not taken this seriously. They are more interested in protecting their own over innocent, broken children. Interesting, isn't it?
James Socrates
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 7:38 a.m.
Well this clarifies things a bit. It was fairly inciteful that the prosecution would have even considered pressing charges on such a foggy statue if there was not fairly clear evidence that this was more then just a "peeping" incident. After seizing the computers, its fairly obvious that the prosecution would leverage additional charges for possession of sexually explicit depictions of minors etc. and so the Defendant cut a plea deal. Simply put, the deal saves the state huge sums, while the defense is spared the publicity and expense of a certainly messy trial. The defendent still must register as a sex offender but is allowed the benefit of fewer criminal charges and less time at sentencing. From a Defense Attorneys perspectives its the best outcome they most likely could have received. Why I personally believe that the allegations are correct is that one doesnt hire arguarably one of the best defence attorneys in the State much less in Ann Arbor who subsequently cuts a plea deal. Its upsetting either way. No one wins. Someone just loses a bit less.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
Some of us were saying this during the uproar on this story. We did not wait until a no contest plea was entered. Some of us, not many, felt that the case obviously had more merit than the articles were revealing because the officials would not have risked going through the whole thing for nothing.
Sarah Parviz
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
EXCELLENT POST!
EllenB
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:01 a.m.
263,000 patients at IHA????? How is that even possible?
ann arbor mom
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.
The size of the IHA practices is really out of hand. Everyone is treated like a number especially at CHA. Our family felt like a number, we were herded in and out never really treated like people. When that practice was young their care was amazing, back in the good old days when the insurance companies didn't get to control our care. I remember Dr. Weinblatt and Dr. Siskolne being the reason we loved that practice!
treetowncartel
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.
IHA is a very large practice group. If you are concerned about their size you can always report them to Federal Trade Commission or State Attorney General's office and they can look into whether they are in violation of the respective Anti-Trust laws.
Kelly
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:54 a.m.
IHA, not CHA . IHA Includes Over 50 practices .
babs
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:25 a.m.
I wondered about that figure also......unless they mean total # of patients through the door since the practice began?
Watcher
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:52 a.m.
No contest to a felony?? This boggles the mind. One can sneak up to a window on another person's property for window peeping and it is only a misdemeanor. But check out a neighbor from your own window and it is a felony? I must be missing something. Here are the relevant statutory excerpts regarding illegal "Surveillance." MCL 750.539a. . . (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. Sec. 539j. (1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. . . (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.. . . (6) As used in this section, "surveil" means to subject an individual to surveillance as that term is defined in section 539a Actually, "surveil" is never really defined. If I walk around naked before getting dressed in the morning and a neighbor watches, is he/she guilty of a felony? What if I observe my neighbor getting into her hot tub? The statute seems designed to penalize the creep who aims a video camera at persons in a changing room. But, as many have said, there must be more to this case.
OnTheRight
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 10:11 p.m.
Anyone can quote sections of state statutes. You need to be in possession of all of the relevant facts as well as years of education and training in order to effectively interpret and apply the relevant statutes and case law. If all it took to be a prosecutor or defense atty was the ability to google state statutes, you all would be members of the Bar and all of those lawyer jokes would have merit. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't try to be an armchair lawyer....it isn't impressive.
nicole
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:49 a.m.
He was framed.
Scylding
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
Yes, by himself in the frame of his own window, masturbating, on a video made by the mother, and by having a bunch of child-xxx on his electronic devices.
justcurious
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:55 a.m.
Nicole, after eating the Free Press article, please tell me if you still think he was framed.
justcurious
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
Give it up
babmay11
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 1:05 a.m.
Why on earth is there a "non-public" registry sex offender list? Seems ridiculous.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
WXYZ-TV News covered the Weinblatt plea deal a few minutes ago. I can only say to have felony charges like this resolved prior to a preliminary examination in the District Court is highly unusual. Dr. Weinblatt receives an interim suspension of his professional license by the Michigan Board of Medicine upon the judicial acceptance of the plea resulting in felony conviction. The Board shall then investigate and hold hearings in which a final disposition of the license shall occur. As a practical matter, his career as a local pediatrician may be over anyway. A sad turn of events. I still think the public is not aware of the behind-the-scene circumstances resulting in the plea agreement. The results of the search warrant of the computer may hold the key to understanding why he pled out so quickly with so much to lose.
Sarah Parviz
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.
a2citizen - that is quite a declaration - you obviously have little knowledge of the workings of the prosecutor's office.
a2citizen
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:09 a.m.
Road, Several people have commented on what may have been found on the computer. I think if there was ANYTHING illegal, such as child porn, the prosecutor would have went for the throat. What was found, if anything, would orobably only serve to embarrass the doctor, his marriage and his wife.
bobr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:17 p.m.
A no contest plea to a felony results in: 1. Registration on the sex offender list maintained by the State of Michigan for 15 years. 2. A rap sheet for a felony conviction. This lasts for lifetime although for certain felonies you can apply for an expungement after 5 years if you have no other record of any kind. 3. If you go to prison, you are listed on the Mich. Dept. of Correction website along with your photo till after your probation period expires. 4. The fact of your conviction is admissible in a civil suit for the next 10 years--although not your words since on a no contest plea, you actually don't say any words, whereas on a guilty plea you have to tell the Judge exactly what you did. So if the family sues the doc, the conviction comes in. 5. Different professions handle convictions in different ways. The Michigan Department of Community Health deals with medical licenses.
evenyoubrutus
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:56 p.m.
"because of the nature of the offense, Weinblatt will be listed on the non-public [sex-offender] registry, which is available only for law enforcement purposes." I'm sure he's very thankful that this doesn't have to be a public issue.
boo
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.
sorry to hear this news. very sad.
Sallyxyz
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.
Medical license suspended but not revoked.....hmmmm. This case is full of plea deals and dismissals and ends in a "no contest" plea. Why wasn't he held accountable to all the charges levied? Why protect his license? He is not fit to practice medicine.
a2citizen
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:55 p.m.
"...his license will automatically be suspended because he was convicted of a felony, state licensing officials said. After his license is suspended, a hearing will be held to determine the next step..."
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
This goes to show you that it doesn't matte was your social status is, you will be accountable for your actions. The facts are the facts, he got caught watching this young girl undress. A grown man watching a young girl undress should be held accountable and hopefully other "sickos" will see this and think before they offend.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
People wake up, he plead "No contest" and is now guilty of a felony. What else is there to say. I agree wtih Fatkitty, maybe something worse was on his home computers that the police seized. And for the people that are shocked and think that something is missing, yes. It is called a confession. But obviously the police had more than enough evidence for the doctor to plea no contest. Hopefully, there aren't any other victims that come forward.
gracelikerain
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.
no contest----- i am so disappointed. If he truly was not guilty why would you plead no contest. Why not fight?? I'm so frustrated with this news and disappointed. I credit this man with saving my 1 year old daughters life-- and the care we have had since he has left not so great! Need a new dr!!!
jmho
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
@Peregrine- thank you for your comments about nuances; it is so true. Dr. W. was my [now grown] sons' doctor and was a blessing to us in many ways. I am clear about that as neither was ever alone with him. That's why, as you said, it is so hard to have to accept the now clear flaws in the man. Clearly, no one truly knows another's soul.
Peregrine
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.
@gracelikerain: I think your reaction captures human tendencies. We like simplicity. People want someone to be good or bad. It's harder to be nuanced. And yet if you think about it, It is possible for someone to be a smart and capable physician and to also be troubled by inappropriate feelings towards children. One is not in direct conflict with the other. Of course once Weinblatt saved your daughter, you had a deep well of positive feelings towards him. But since you ask "why not fight?" despite the fact that he has now refused to contest the charges, you seem to be refusing to embrace a more nuanced view.
act now
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
He's truly guilty, that's why he's not fighting. Accept that he did a wonderful thing for your daughter and move on.
david st. crystal
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:18 p.m.
Legally, no-contest is just a different way of admitting guilt. Pleading no-contest means you DO NOT contest any of the facts alleged in the indictment, the prosecutors charges, or the information in the complaint.
Jeff Gaynor
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:58 p.m.
Perhaps this ... perhaps that ... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ...
Diane
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:27 p.m.
What a share, after all the years of schooling & work & have it end like this. I do not feel sorry for him. He deserves what he gets.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
I totally agree with you
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:46 p.m.
I do believe that any adult who has a sexual interest in a child has mental problems. I also believe that it must be a very terrible thing for them to deal with. In this case it might have been overwhelming. I don't relish seeing this situation and I have not enjoyed seeing that photo of this man in the articles. It is all very sad and unfortunate for everyone involved, as someone else expressed.
djacks24
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
"As a result of the conviction, Weinblatt must register annually for 15 years on the state Sex Offender Registry. However, because of the nature of the offense, Weinblatt will be listed on the non-public registry, which is available only for law enforcement purposes." A2.com has already made sure even if he's not listed on the public registry, the public will know anyway. A google search of the guys name will bring up A2.com as the top hits.
eCoaster
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.
Along with many other news outlets that saw fit to cover a story that has the potential to impact hundreds of families whose children came into contact with this sick pediatrician.
genetracy
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
This case is a matter of public record. A2.com is only reporting it. Do you think there should have been a news blackout regarding the doctor and this case?
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.
<a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/no-contest/" rel='nofollow'>http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/no-contest/</a> No Contest Law & Legal Definition Nolo contendre is a Latin term meaning "I will not contest" the charges, which is a plea made by a defendant to a criminal charge, allowing the judge to then find him/her guilty. It has the same effect as a plea of guilty, as far as the criminal sentence is concerned, but may not be considered as an admission of guilt for any other purpose. A nolo contendre plea in a criminal case may not be used against the same person in a civil suit based on the SAME FACTS. It is often called a "plea of no contest." However, they may be required to be disclosed on certain applications, such as an employment or insurance application.
myopinion
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.
Hi justcurious, I wanted to thank you also for seeing this as it really was and not turning it around on the victim like the majority here. I've seen you going up against who would have ever thought such an unpopular opinion for weeks, so thank you!
nicole
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.
I still think it's absurd that you can be filmed in the privacy of your own home bathroom and then accused of a felony. What he was doing in his own bathroom, with the blinds drawn, was his business. He likely pleaded no contest because he doesn't want this thing to drag on for years in the courts.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:52 p.m.
Nicole, this man is sick. As a grown man, you don't watch little girls undress. I wish this would have gone to trial and then maybe you would have heard how sick this man is.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
Yes, here we go again. And if a man stood in his window across from your daughter's window and masterbated while looking at her, you would say it is fine and he has a right to do it? I don't think so.
act now
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
Here I go again. Really? REALLY??!! Do you really think a truly innocent man would plead no contest and have his license taken away, have to register as a sex offender, and probably have to move (he is a stone throw away from Burns Park, right??) just so it doesn't drag on for years?? No way. He was guilty and I very, very much suspect he wants to keep the other skeletons in his closet (the computers, at least) from becoming public. Wake up people.
Bacon Bits
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:17 p.m.
A "no contest" plea does NOT indicate you assert your innocence. It's more basic than that. It simply means you do not wish to contend the charges (and nothing more). That is the definition.
Sandy Castle
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.
It means you don't dispute the charges.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.
For the prosecution, it is a victory as this man receives an immediate license suspension and in all likelihood will never practice medicine or teach again. I also wonder why Larry Margolis, the initial counsel apparently was replaced with attorney O'Brien; possibly over defense strategy as many defense counsel would not want to plea a defendant in a case like this. Thae AAPD and Brian Mackie's office can come out of this case with a certain sense of accomplishment. This is despite the fact it cannot be a crime to look out of one's own window.
kr8tr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
You are talking about a man who looked out his window for a length of time at a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL! The child was his patient! We aren't talking about him looking at his 21 year old neighbor or his 35 year old neighbor or even his 18 year old neighbor. Child porn is not legal in your house, even if you close the curtains. This doesn't seem wrong to you?
Sandy Castle
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.
He has a very good attorney. If what he was doing was legal they would have went to trial. It doesn't matter WHERE you are if you are surveilling an unclothed minor. Someone could surveil an unclothed minor in their own home. It's illegal, no matter where it happens.
genetracy
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:02 p.m.
If Dr Weinblatt moves after this is all said and done, perhaps you can invite him to move in next door to you.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.
That issue was never adjudicated, J.C. The purpose of a preliminary exan is to determine if any proof exists to support a charge made. That hearing was never had.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
Interesting to review your previous comments on this concerning Brian Mackie and the AAPD. And evidently it can be a crime to look out of one's window if they are masterbating while looking at a 12 year old child.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.
I do not believe the allegations amounted to a crime as the purported victim had no reasonable expectation to privacy in an unshaded window. It is possible the search and seizure of Dr. Weinblatt's computer developed some interesting information that the public is unaware of that may have been the impetus for plea negotiations. Maybe some grounds for a FOIA request. That said, the plea is for a 2-year "high misdemeanor" cognizable in the circuit court as a felony where he will face sentencing and likely face no incarceration given his age, non-violent nature of the crime, and apparent lack of a prior criminal record. I wonder if there was a prosecutorial sentencing recommendation extracted as part of the plea deal? Judge Shelton will be fair and probably take into account the medical license suspension as a severe enough punishment already. No-contest plea also means the plea admissions cannot be used against him in any later civil proceeding. I think the prosecution had proof problems if they proceeded with their case. It is also possible the doctor was nearing retirement and did not plan to practice medicine in the near future anyway. I think two lives were needlessly turned upside down here. Iwould like to see Freedom of Information Act requests on all police and prosecutorial records to determine what actually occurred and the proofs the authorities had. Dr. Weinblatt was a medical school professor, respected pediatrician and a prominent and well-liked member of the community and saw his reputation savaged publically. There are no winners here. Whatever happened here, I am no fan of the actions of the AAPD and Brian Mackie's office in this case.
NonTownie
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Yes, please cue the Law & Order theme song now: dum-DUMMM
mcdunnough
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
I think you should send AAPD and Brian Mackie a dozen roses and clean their offices for a week after you browse the Free Press article on this subject. And stop watching so much Law & Order.
Michigan Reader
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 1:09 a.m.
Roadman, You don't think the girl had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when the DOCTOR'S window was frosted and partly covered by shades? And this was a second floor level perspective. I guess "reasonable" minds can disagree.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.
@Jester: He was fighting some of the charges; motions for dismissal were pending but never heard by the District Court
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
In my post above, I mistyped -- I meant to say that the Dr's reputation was more important to Roadman that it was to the Dr., seeing that the Dr. did not contest the charges. I wish we could edit these posts.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
How can you say that there were prosecutorial problems. If there were, any defense attorney would have fought them, especially in liberal A2. The facts are he plead guilty, with a high paid defense attorney. The plea was to mitigate "any additional charges." I think those would have been an eye opener for everyone. Someone commented on the prosecutors having an "ace in the hole," I agree
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.
Since no one not directly involved in the case has any knowledge of the nature and extent of the evidence that exists in the case, what basis is there for declaring no crime was committed? To conclude that lives were "needlessly" impaced is blatantly offensive, given that the man has pleaded no contest and that a 12 yr. old is involved. His reputation was apparently not as important to you as it was to him, as he has chosen to not contest the charges. I find it appalling you continue to disregard the courage it took to report this matter, given the universally well-known and well-respected position the Dr. had in the community, and to persevere in the face of hostility from people who stubbornly cling to their delusions, even when faced with evidence to the contrary. If anything, I give the Dr. a bit of credit for recognizing his responsibility and sparing the family and the minor the ordeal of a trial, but I don't pretend he's some kind of victim here.
NonTownie
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.
@Roadman: You clearly have a dislike for cops, and Brian Mackie. *beating a dead horse* The only thing I do agree with is that there are no winners here at all: ~ a 12-year old girl and her family ~ neighbors pitted against neighbors over their opinions ~ CHA patients and their families ~ Dr. Weinblatt's wife and children
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.
Give it up for Heaven's sake.
SEC Fan
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
Thank you 1970s Supreme Court. What kind of world do we live in where you can plead guilty while simultaneously saying you're not guilty? Does no one have to accept responsibilities for their actions? He pleads this to get a lighter sentence and/or additional charges dropped. He doesn't plead this if he's innocent! Government avoids a trial (cost and possibility of losing on a technicality) and he avoids the maximum sentence...AND he can still go around claiming he didn't do anything. What a farce. Some crimes should be prosecuted fully.
YpsiVeteran
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 1:14 a.m.
Sorry YpsiLivin, a No Contest plea is treated as a guilty plea in court for a reason. And when the defendant faces the judge to give his plea, the judge will ask why the defendant is pleading No Contest, and the response from his lawyer will be "To protect against civil liability," or something to that effect. It's a shell game that allows the defendant some protection in a civil suit, but no protection from the consequences of the crime. While there will not be the examination of fact in court and verdict from a judge or a jury, it's only because the defendant is agreeing to skip it and is asking the court to punish him for the crime anyway. By it's definition, it's not a denial of anything, just as it's not, *technically*, an admission of anything; it's an agreement not to contest/deny/protest charges.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.
YpsiVeteran, By its very definition, a no contest plea *is* a denial of guilt. Because the court accepted a no-contest plea instead of one that would require a trial of the facts, the question of his guilt or innocence in the matter will NEVER be determined legally. He accepted punishment without either admitting guilt or being found guilty. If, in your mind, that makes him guilty, then so be it. (For you.) But the law recognizes a difference between a no-contest plea and a guilty plea. After all, if there were no difference between the two, there would be no such thing as a no-contest plea. Declining to deny something is not the same thing as admitting it.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
YpsiLivin, you just keep telling yourself that this man did not admit guilt. Technically, in court, his plea is not an admission of guilt. Not technically, in the real world, that's exactly what it is. "Not contesting," or, in effect, "not denying" charges is not the same thing as denying guilt, either. To say a no contest plea is a denial of guilt is an unsupported stretch.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.
Dr. Weinblatt did not use an Alford plea. He pleaded no contest. Nolo contendere comes from English common law and has been used in courts around the world for hundreds of years. The US Supreme Court had nothing to do with it. A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt. It is technically a denial of guilt. In this case, Dr. Weinblatt admitted nothing other than not wanting to contest the charges against him.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
So much for Justice is Blind eh?
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
I am not happy with the result, but Weinblatt has already paid a hefty price over what may have occurred.
Stephenb1707
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:38 p.m.
I too find something missing. I find it hard to believe America is to the point where looking thru your own windows is a crime. Next the person being peeked at will get a fine for not closing her/his curtains or not having any. I do not condone peeking but this is a little too far out. Women of all ages(and some men) dress in such a way that brings attention to themselves. Walking down a street and staring at them could now be against the law. I believe the American people have hit another low.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
Stephenb: First of all, the victim in this case is not a woman, she's a 12 year old girl. Is that fact not significant to you? Equating provocative clothing to this situation is just scary. Second, I find it hard to believe a grown adult could somehow come to the conclusion that this man was charged with several felonies for simply looking out his window. Do you also think a man who in his heart knew he was watching the squirrels and the falling leaves would plead no contest to a felony sex offense? Please.
eCoaster
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.
The peeping charges were dropped, so that point is moot. He was convicted of surveilling an unclothed child.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.
@Stephenemb1707 and @Roadman What world do you live in where it is ok to masturbate (in your own home or not) while watching a 12 year old girl change?? This mother did a very brave thing by not jumping the gun after the first time she witnessed something odd going on.
act now
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.
Wow @Stephenemb1707 and @Roadman. Really? REALLY??!! You really don't think there's more to this than looking out a window? What disgusts me is that people are still defending him. I wonder how the great Dr. would have fared if the contents of his computers were presented as evidence at a trial. I'd be willing to bet the defense was even more screwed after the forensics team found a pile of badness there. He took the plea deal so we'd never know just how creepy he is. I say the prosecutor did a kind thing by offering it.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.
Please read previous comments before posting.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
I agree, even if Weinblatt was doing something disgusting, how is it a crime to gaze out of your own window? That is why the charges disgust me.
genetracy
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
Being a doctor with his financial means, he could hire the best attornies who could mount the most vigorous of defenses. By him accepting a plea agreement, this tells me there is truth to the accusations. I am sure more sorbid details would have come out in the trial, things we will probably never know. If he is truly innocent, do you not think you would fight tooth and nail to defend his good name, professioanl standing, and his medical license?
genetracy
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.
Well Treeguy, Roadie seems to think the guy "didn't do anything other than look out his window". Notice I said said "innocent", meaning did not commit the crime or was falsely accused. However, if I did indeed commit the crime and was charged, yes I would consider aplea deal to avoind a trial and possible prison term.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.
@ genetracy, some people prefer the certainty of a punishment over rolling the dice and possibly spending a much more significant amount of time in prison.
genetracy
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.
If I was accused of such a heinous crime and knew in my heart and soul I was truly innocent, I would fight the charges to my last breath. I sure as heck would not take a plea to "avoid stress".
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
I really can't say what his motivations were. It is possible the stress he and his family would have gone through inprojected criminal proceedings were not worth the fight. That said, he is now a convicted felon who has a suspended medical license.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.
Taking this to trial and beyond if convicted would have been a hefty expense for the Dr. both financially and emotionally. Regardless of his actions, the law as written is pretty vague and up for a Constitutional challenge. As others have said, being a martyr may not have been worth it in the end. One does have wonder where the ACLU was on this one.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.
Avoiding the possibility ofa long prison sentence is somewhat the same. If it were no contest from the get go why wasn't that the plea entered at arraignment.
eCoaster
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:21 p.m.
Weinblatt weighed the plea deal and took it to avoid a longer prison sentence. Not martyrdom.
Sandy Castle
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
Prosecutors don't ACCEPT plea deals, they OFFER plea deals. The prosecutor would have offered this deal to the doctor and he had the choice to accept or not. It sounds like HIS defense was pretty weak and the deal was a better scenario than if he had gone to trial and all of the evidence was presented. He could have gone to prison for much longer than what the deal offered. Some of you don't understand that it didn't matter that he was in his own home. There are some things that you can do in your own home that outside of your home would be illegal, but there are some crimes where it's still a crime when you do it in your home.
mGill
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys can discuss deals, but only the prosecution can legally make an offer.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.
What are you talking about? Defense lawyers approach prosecutors with potential deals all the time.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.
The defense counsel can ask about receptivity for a NOLO - to be accurate.
A2centsworth
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
This whole story has sickened me. As a pediatrician with so much access to children I wonder how many other people have been affected by him.
Sallyxyz
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
Exactly. This reminds me of Jerry Sandusky, though not on that level. But this doctor, like Sandusky, had access to victims through his medical practice, and getting caught might only be the tip of the iceberg. I agree with A2centsworth.
Michigan Man
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:42 p.m.
A2cents = exactly - The proper authorities (who ever they may be) will now need to investigate basically the entire medical practice career of this man to uncover/determine/find out if other acts of criminal behavior, patient abuse, sexual assult, patient substandard care were part of the medical practice history of this man.
hmsp
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
@ MichiganMan: I was one of those who thought the story smelled at first -- the mother's actions just didn't make sense. And I posted something to that effect. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought she did the right thing. The options were: * Put up new drapes just in case, and put it out of your mind. * If the initial suspicion level is high enough, change doctors, too. * Hard as it is (especially for a mother) to leave the curtains untouched, leave them, set up the iPad, and find out for sure. If she didn't follow through and try to find out the real facts, she would never know how to act with him, and might have needlessly ruined her perfectly good neighborly and professional relations, if he actually was innocent. If he was not innocent, she would have also left other kids at possible risk -- it doesn't sound as though he ever crossed the line in his practice, but you never know. Hard as it must have been to leave her daughter quite literally "exposed" as she did, she was courageous, and did the right thing by trying to collect actual, factual evidence, whether he was guilty or not. If it turned out to be a false alarm, she could put up new drapes, and forget about it. It would appear on the surface that he was not innocent, and that the video evidence was pretty incontrovertible. At least, that is the most logical explanation for the way this has played out, given the information we have. Of course we don't really know for sure.
EMU Prof
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.
Well said.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.
Well said. I wish it had been said earlier though.
Sam Smith
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
Good points regarding the mother and her fact finding. I must admit I was kind of upset she would subject her daughter to him four times. She was probably in shock and denial and thought no one would believe her if she came forward. Then the mom would have been labeled a nut or worse, he'd do different so he wouldn't get caught and more children would be hurt. I thought I knew what to do if this happened to my loved one, still not sure without breaking the law myself or contacting police right away. I hope and pray that all victims of sexual abuse heal in good health and find peace.
myopinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
That's exactly right the victim's mother was not only looking out for her own child but everyone's children which you all should be thankful for.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.
Never thought about that series of choices, but well said. In fact, it seems the mother acted to benefit everyone's children, not just her own.
Sandy Castle
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
Nolo contendere: A nolo contendere, or no contest, plea indicates that, while you're not admitting guilt, you don't dispute the charge. This is preferable to a guilty plea because guilty pleas can be used against you in later civil lawsuits
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 1:05 a.m.
FreedomOfSpeech your correct he was found "not guilty" verses "innocent" as anyone acquitted is. I caught my mistake after the fact, but its uncorrectable without an edit button. But my point is the same. Guilty, not guilty, no contest, it only mildly matters when one gets sued after the criminal trials are over. One can be found not guilty in criminal court and still lose in civil court over the same incident. Clearly no contest doesn't shield you from a civil loss.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.
This has already been said. I wish that people would bother to read previous comments.
FreedomOfSpeech
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:19 p.m.
Actually Craig, O.J. was not found "innocent" he was aquitted. The difference is important and the civil suit is just one proof of that.
treetowncartel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
You are correct, the Board of Medicine can not rely on this plea for their case, they will have to prove it on their own. He hasn't given any sworn testimony so they have an uphill battle. However, they will be able to rely on the mother and her testimony.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.
I don't think it matters...OJ was found innocent and lost a law suit
ArgoC
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
Who cares? This story has gotten far more space (and reaction) than it deserves. Let's move on to something that affects all of us more than this does. Let the guy start the process of learning from his mistakes. I hope that each vituperative commenter here thinks a little bit about something they are currently doing in their life that they don't ever ever want to be caught doing.
mcdunnough
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:07 a.m.
Who cares? People against child porn. Maybe you should learn to take things more seriously... <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say</a> <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say</a>
ArgoC
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.
I'm not saying it's not awful, but I do think that it's being overplayed. We have rapes, assaults, many personal violations of all kinds going on in this town that people seem to think is not worthy of comment. Yes, he's more of a public figure and had a lot of contact with a lot of individuals. But [names deleted] were men who raped strangers walking around on the street and those stories didn't get anything like 132 comments. Question for you - are you outraged that he peeped? Or that his full-time employment is pediatrician?
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:22 p.m.
ArgoC, I cannot believe that this is what you have to say here. Perhaps you should read recipes instead on this site.
NonTownie
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
"Let's move on to something that affects all of us more than this does." Hello? This does affect a *whole* lot of people; the patients he has seen at CHA, and their parents. I can only imagine that number, in the course of his career, has been thousands. Perhaps not your children, but my children, and the neighbor's children. Maybe you don't have to think about all of the times your daughters have seen Dr. W, and now second-guess his then-intentions during visits at CHA. I'm sure I am not the only parent who has lost some sleep over these alleged charges. Then there is the young girl and her family, and the turmoil that must have been created in the neighborhood over this.
myopinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.
I posted the other day how shocked and disgusted I was with all the comments on here defending Dr. Weinblatt and turning it all around on the victim after having known both the victim's mother from her referring me to Dr. Weinblatt years ago and who always spoke nothing but highly of him every time I talked to her as a doctor and neighbor. I knew that this must have been true because of that and also the video evidence. Even now today with him pleading no contest there are still comments like "it doesn't add up", "something is missing to this story", "he wanted it to go away", "he wanted the whole thing to be over" "such little evidence looking out your bathroom window" etc etc I am floored at how you guys are totally missing the fact that they had him masturbating on video at a 12yr old girl. A 12YR OLD GIRL GETTING UNDRESSED. A video of the crime now is very little evidence? I'm glad this has finally come out and he pleaded no contest which NOBODY would do if they were innocent no matter how long a trial takes if you are innocent you fight it. WAKE UP PEOPLE! The one's defending him all along I hope you are eating your words and you should be apologizing to the victim and her family; you all should be ashamed of yourselves for turning it around on them saying the mother handled it all wrong a.You all just totally omitted the fact that this was a 12yr old girl, because Dr. W is such a wonderful doctor. I hope this never happens to your little girl. Shameful!
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
myopinion, you were like a voice crying in the wilderness on here, and I thank you for having the courage to say what you did. From the start I too could not believe the comments considering that a 12 year old girl was involved and that this man worked with children every day. Does this say something about our society? I wonder.
A2centsworth
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
whether or not he is guilty, is not up to me to decide. There are many people out in the world with a variety of likes, dislikes, fetishes if you will. It is my hope that he has not traumatized any child under his care. Certainly peeking from his own window is far less horrific than luring children into his car, or being innapropriate with children in his office. But that act, in and of itself is far less punishable than other types of unacceptable behavior. Maybe there are other factors involved, other evidence of wrongdoings. I am not trying to defend him or agree with any of this, just the idea that a person can be arrested for something they do in their own home is unsettling. It is far easier for me to think that there is other evidence that the public has not been made aware of.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
Well said.. this is exactly how I feel. Thank you myopinion!
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
A No Contest Plea will get the Prosecution what they want and must have a factual basis. The plea protects the Doctor from admitting guilt which could be used in a civil suit against him and protects his assets, but it comes at the cost of his freedom and rights. I am not sure about Michigan, but in some states he cannot then proclaim his innocence either once he pleas Nolo Contendere. Anyone know about the Michigan demands for NOLO? Will he have to surrender his right to practice as a Pediatrician and register as a sex offender?
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.
information was just updated - thanks for pointing it out
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:17 p.m.
Doesn't it say in the article that he will be on a PRIVATE sex offender list?
Cash
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
"In addition, as part of the deal, prosecutors have agreed not to bring further charges against Weinblatt in relation to the investigation." Didn't they take his computers as part of their investigation? Regardless, I'm sure his attorney already has negotiated the sentence as part of the plea.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.
Judge Shelton is liberal on first-time non-violent offenders. The sentence was likely negotiated as part of the plea deal. Just like Miguel Cabrera did on his OUIL 2nd charge in Florida.
Cash
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.
JMO...yes, but these lawyers know the judge, his reputation and what to expect based on the plea. They know.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
As regards sentencing, they can agree on a recommendation, but the judge can do what he or she likes, without regard to either side's agreement.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
Interesting point.
EMU Prof
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
I was one of Weinblatt's staunchest defenders when this broke, but it's time to face facts--this ain't good. My guess--and it's only a guess--is that he is pleading in order to prevent the video of him being shown. There may be more to this story, but not much more, I sadly suspect.
EMU Prof
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.
JohnnyA2, I think you are right. I guess what bewildered me was that the guy could this long without even a *hint* of something being amiss. Most pedophiles probably seem perfectly normal, but once they are caught, something usually emerges that is sort of off--a strange fondness for having lots of kids over at his house, even though he doesn't have any, etc. Pedophiles certainly don't look a certain way, but I'm pretty sure there are often behavioral cues. I'll return to the Sandusky example--was anyone who knew him really, truly shocked?
johnnya2
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:54 p.m.
@EMUProf Pedarests and pedophiles do not wear large badges on their chests. They can be doctors, lawyers and even professors. They do not have the look of what criminality is portrayed as on television. People are told not to go to certain neighborhoods, do not hang out with certain types of people, or frequent certain establishments. THIS is what scares people the most and why they do not want to believe it. Most of us can pick out a crack head, or a meth addict. Many could pick out a gang member. I would bet you could put 100 pedophiles in a room and probably end up thinking they were decent people.
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
and EMU Prof, that attitude is exactly what perpetuates these crimes.
EMU Prof
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.
One last thing for the record: those of us who stuck up for him did so not because of his "socioeconomic status," which is ridiculous, but because we knew him and found it impossible to reconcile what was alleged with the person we knew. Imagine a kindly, upstanding-seeming neighbor being arrested for running a meth lab in his basement; you wouldn't believe it. My kids were his patients and I"d rather believe the best, but at this point that would, frankly, defy reason. Very sad for all involved.
Ron Granger
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.
Why did they accept this verdict, if they had a strong case? Especialy in a matter of this significance. I don't think "they" typically accept No Contest unless the case is weak. No Contest is not accepting responsbility for what happened.
Cash
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
Ron, this saves time, money and grief. He would get exactly the same sentence with either plea....and his no contest plea can only help him with civil suits that will surely follow.
ArgoC
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
Good. Let's move on. This man has received far more publicity than your average alleged criminal.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.
I think the publicity is great. It shows that it doesn't matter what your status is, you will be held accountable for your actions.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
I would also argue that he rec'd a better deal than your average alleged criminal would have. Where are all the people who were complaining about him not being treated fairly because his mug shot appeared with the stories run about this incident? Why should someone who pleads No Contest to a felony sex offense be allowed to keep his name off the "public" sex offender registry? Because he was a "respected" professional and long-time member of the community? A man who pleads no contest to a felony involving a minor is allowed to be on some "private" version of the sex offender registry, where parents and others will not be able to locate his name, yet 16 yr. olds who have consensual sex with their 15 yr. old girl- or boyfriends have had to register publicly and remain on the list for 25 years? What hypocrisy.
ArgoC
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Nobody's saying what he did was even remotely okay. It's the level of outrage for this, compared to violent domestic crimes around here, that has surprised me. Or, in the case of various new reports on violent domestic crimes, do people not get outraged because they are, unconsciously, thinking that the wife/girlfriend who was attacked is somehow less "innocent" than this girl-child?
whineandcheese
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:55 p.m.
As well he should have. People have a right to know what their child's doctor is being convicted of. Especially do to the nature of the accusations.
Fred
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
"No contest" = "guilty with denial."
Peregrine
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
It's been interesting and sad to read the comments of those who most vociferously defended Dr. Weinblatt in these pages since the story was first reported. 1. There have been those who did not see how anything could be proved given he was apparently looking out his own window. However as alleged evidence came to light it seemed the case might have been pretty solid. Most recently it was claimed that he was peeking through a narrow slit between blinds and frosted glass. If that slit had not been at his natural eye level -- either he had to stoop low or stand on something -- it would have been pretty clear that these events were not coincidental. And then there were the allegations about what it appeared he was doing behind the frosted glass. 2. Perhaps more disturbing are those who claimed that even if he were intentionally watching a 12-year-old changing, it was fine, because he was in his own home and the parents failed to provide adequate window covering. 3. And then there have been the group that have claimed that something was not adding up. To me this sounded like coded language that someone of his socioeconomic status simply could not do something of this nature.
just sayin
Fri, Jan 27, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
@Mike yes, very clear.
girlhunter
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.
I unfortunaly was one of the 3 group of people! Did not want to believe that someone that I trusted, and had seen my daughters, was guilty of this.. So very sad! I believe that you are right!
easy123
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
I think "Peregrine" would have done very well during the Salem witch trials. I hope tyo God, this does not happen to you. You should read up on the individuals who have gotten caught up under the judicial system. There was a 48 hr story about the 17 year old kid, who was accused of killing a woman, as well as the Michigan gentleman, who was accused to molesting his daughter. It was obvious that they were innocent after an initial investigation. The accusations pretty much destroyed their way of life. So where are you, when these occurs on a routine basis. It is very easy to tar and feather. Now,try plucking them out.
Peregrine
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:10 a.m.
@Fatkitty: By "fine" I primarily meant fine in the legal sense more than the moral sense. Many people claimed, whether he was purposefully watching or not, that a crime could not have taken place because he was in his own house and the other house's window covering's were insufficient. And you need look no further than this very thread to see people expressing that view. @clownfish: I agree.
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:47 p.m.
Just saying I haven't seen it. Can you clearly see that he is pleasuring himselve?
clownfish
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:25 p.m.
Just as disturbing as defending the doctor is assuming he was guilty prior to court proceedings.
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
I agree with you. It just goes to show you that this was a sick man and he will hopefully feel the consequences of his actions.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
@Mike The video does 'truly' exist.
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.
just saying: There is "allegedly " a video of him pleasuring himself. I don't understand how that could be, if he was peering through a frosted glass window that was opened slightly. I suspect (if fact, I'm confident), that if this video truly existed, he would not have been allowed to plead "no contest".
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
Peregrine, you hit the nail on the head with your assessment. This is how sexual abuse often goes unreported. People just don't want to believe it and that often hinders them being outed early, or ever.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
@Barb- have you not read the other articles? There was a video of him pleasuring himself while watching a 12 year old change! Why in the world "should be prosecuting people for what he is alleged to have done"?
Fatkitty
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
"2. Perhaps more disturbing are those who claimed that even if he were intentionally watching a 12-year-old changing, it was fine, because he was in his own home and the parents failed to provide adequate window covering." I think you've embellished the facts just a little. There are those who claim a person has a right to freedom within their own home, and there were those who expressed concern over inadequate window coverings on the neighbor's home. But I do not recall ANYONE saying it's ok for someone to "intentionally watch a 12-year old changing" or undressing from within their own home. Suggest you go back and re-read the previously posted comments.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.
My thoughts exactly!
Barb
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
"Perhaps more disturbing are those who claimed that even if he were intentionally watching a 12-year-old changing, it was fine, because he was in his own home..." IMO, it's not "fine" but what *is* concerning is what this implies about what you can and can't do in your own home. This guy wasn't slinking around (from all accounts). He was in a place where one could also reasonably expect privacy. I'm not condoning what he did but I'm not sure we should be prosecuting people for what he is alleged to have done.
girlhunter
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.
I am very disappointed that he pleaded no contest! He has seen each of my now grown children. I was really hoping that this was not true... Don't even know what to say.. I would say that his medical career is at a hult! No matter where he goes .. this will follow.. all they would have to do is google his name. I check out doctors before I go see them all the time...This is so sad!
jester32b
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.
Yes it is sad, but he did this to himself. There are some "sickos" out there and he was one of them, unfortunately.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:34 p.m.
Prosecutors must have an ace up their sleeves to proceed with this case; something beyond circumstantial and damaging to the defense.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
Barb, a man of his stature in this community might plead No Contest to an OUIL ( DUI) because he wants it to be over, or a speeding ticket or something of that nature, but not to a felony sex offense. No one willing accepts the "convicted sex offender" label just to move on with life.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
Can't be too huge an ace or they would continue to trial or demand he plead guilty.
Barb
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
I don't know. Maybe he just wanted the whole thing to just be over.
Michigan Man
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
Cant wait to read all the gnashing of the teeth comments from those earlier posters who just knew this man was being set up by the pesky neighbor. Rushing to judgment without correct information generally turns out to be an inexact science. The legal process played out, this man apparently could afford and had competent lawyers and we now have an outcome. I return again to my original comments that the medical profession, which is chartered to protect patients and promote public health, needs to monitor, audit and become more forceful in examining how they police themselves.
kr8tr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
I don't think everyone was rushing to judgment, however, I think we can agree many of us would not have handled the situation in the way that it was.
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
myopinion: He may have won in the comment section, but his face being plastered on the front "page" over and over doomed him. Just imagine if he had to go on trial in that atmosphere.
myopinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.
He lost because of a2.com? Far from it considering all the people on here defending his actions.
Fatkitty
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
@Michigan Man, suggest that you don't rush to judgment (no, we DON'T have an outcome yet). Let the courts handle it. It ain't over until it's over.
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
The legal system? He was tried by a2.com, not the law. At this point, he lost no matter what the truth is.
David Briegel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
No matter what, he couldn't win. All he could do was make it go away!
Michigan Man
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:37 p.m.
Briegel - This not going away - it is just beginning. Proper officials, law enforcement and others who protect the public health will now need to examine his office practice patterns, review previous patient complaints of any nature, examine his hospital admitting practices for possible patient abuse, evaluate possible previous efforts to conceal this behavior in office/hospital settings and move to review/revoke/terminate his current Michigan licensure. This is just the beginning of possible reviews/inspection/examination of his practice patterns.
lynel
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.
JMO, MAY have to register as a sex offender? I hope to hell he DOES have to register as a sex offender!
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:04 p.m.
I seriously doubt this is about 'making it all go away'. He will go to prison and may have to register as a sex offender. I doubt this is a 'make it all go away' decision. It sounds more like a 'make the best of it' decision.
Ralfie
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
There was obviously more to this story than originally reported. I would fight the charges to the death if I were innocent and falsely accused, you don't just give up. I've never agreed with the no contest plea..."I'm not going to say I did it, but I will go to prison for it"...stupid. It does shield him from civil litigation, which is another issue all together. If you're guilty plead guilty and accept responsibility for your actions. If you're innocent never ever surrender. Our legal system is a mess.
mkm17
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.
I agree with Ralfie. If I didn't do it, I would fight the charges. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Dr. W does not have to prove he didn't do it. The prosecutor must prove Dr. W did it. Maybe there was evidence after all?
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
You may agree if the alternative was being found guilty. No contest is a great plea for those who look like they will be found guilty to a reasonable extent, but the case is not a slam dunk. No contest has to be accepted by the Prosecutors as well, so the case sounds like it must be good but not air tight for the prosecution. The State gets what they want - the defendant gets less than what The State wanted if convicted.
Michigan Man
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.
Did it occur to you that this man actually did, on a number of occasions, what was alleged? Did it occur to you that he was not falsely accused? Did it occur to you that this man took the easy, most immediate and less costly way out? Did it occur to you that the legal system got this correct?
NonTownie
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
What happens with his license after this? Does it really matter? Child Health Associates is a top-notch pediatric office. IMHO, I'm sure they will not jeopardize their successful practice any further.
NonTownie
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.
@kr8tr: As a mother of three, I will not leave Child Health Associates because of this incident. While this is a thriving practice, I do agree with you that new patients may think twice before bringing their babies here now. There are over a dozen physicians, and I have seen many of them over the years, when my primary physician was not available. @Kelly: "You all should know , he created the practice." I didn't realize he was known as the creator of Child Health Associates. He will now be known for being a pedofile, and a registered sex offender.
Kelly
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.
You all should know , he created the practice .
kr8tr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
I agree. It is unfortunate that this will tarnish in any way the office of CHA. We still love our doctor there and it will not affect our opinion in any way, but I can see new patients shying away from them over it.
NonTownie
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:48 p.m.
I agree, Michigan Man. I was responding to another commenter's question above. My children have been patients at CHA for 15+ years now. Even *IF* he was able to keep his license, I for one would not be lining up with my children.
Michigan Man
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
If this man has not already been terminated, CHA will (should) summarily terminate him given this outcome. The absolute 1st element of medical care is = do no harm.
Fatkitty
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Interesting. Perhaps the search and seizure of 4 computers, a hard drive and thumb drive from Dr. W's home revealed incriminating evidence.
Sonja Greenfield
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 2:48 a.m.
According to an article in the Detroit Free Press, it did! Here's the link: <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab" rel='nofollow'>http://www.freep.com/article/20120125/NEWS05/301250001/Doctor-s-computer-had-child-porn-police-say?odyssey=tab</a>|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:53 p.m.
ypsiveteran: I don't know how much experience you have in the justice system, but if the prosecutor had evidence of more crimes, he would get the indictment first, and then make the deal. And if there is rock-solid evidence of a crime against a child, don't expect a no-contest plea to be allowed. The language of the plea is standard.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
MIKE, exactly the opposite would be true. The prosecutor agreed not to press further charges in this case, language that is not necessary or stipulated unless further charges are indeed supportable and available.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
MIKE: Not necessarily - it may be it contained material enough to force the plea. One can only assume it didn't contain enough to make a larger and more serious case.
MIKE
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.
I believe it's pretty obvious it didn't, from the absence of additional charges.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
"A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but is treated as such at sentencing." I'm no lawyer but its fair to say he passed on his right to a trial by his "peers".
justcurious
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
klhp, the "community commentary" on here was pretty much that he was totally innocent and that he should sue the girl's family, not that he was guilty. My take on that was that parents just could not wrap their brains around a possible outcome of guilt. especially those whose children were patients of his.
klhp
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:25 p.m.
There's no way he could have had a fair trial in this area, what with the media coverage and resulting community commentary.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
But he was willing to accept the court treating him as guilty at sentencing without him saying the words.
Opinionated
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
At least the young girl didn't have to testify and at this point the family can get on with their lives. I think I would put my house up for sale though. I can't imagine having to live next door to "no contest."
Barb
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
That's exactly what he did - he also declined to accept guilt.
Jim Brooks
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.
I'm sure he's got some good legal advice and this plea protects his medical license. Defending his innocense could have much more costlier consequences. This plea may be his best legal course of action.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.
The hallmark of the Innocence Project is that the convicted have been disadvantaged by the police or by counsel and in some sense railroaded into the verdict or plea. As the doctor is by all reports a man of means, it seems unlikely that he has not had more than competent to excellent counsel and the ability to fight this if he wished. No contest pleas are not the same for all states. Some states require one not proclaim ones innocence after taking the plea, some permit it.
seldon
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
I'll stick by what I've said, because it's fact. People do plead for various reasons, even when they're innocent. It even happens on murder charges. Here are some examples: <a href="http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/When_the_Innocent_Plead_Guilty.php" rel='nofollow'>http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/When_the_Innocent_Plead_Guilty.php</a> If innocent people will plead guilty to murder, they'll plead no contest to "surveilling an unclothed person" under the right circumstances, too. Whatever Weinblatt did at this point, even if he's innocent, his career as a pediatrician is over. Sure, he might be able to keep his license if he were exonerated, but no parent would ever send their kids to him again. And no practice with access to the Internet would ever hire him. We don't know what happened. We probably never will.
JustMyOpinion
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4 p.m.
Disagree Selson. You have your reputation and honor in life and nothing else. He is a pediatrician - No Contest is not a winnable position for continuing practicing unless he is moving to Nepal. It speaks volumes about the reality of the situation.
RuralMom
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I would NOT plead to something my hands were entirely clean in. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I would never behave in this manner. So don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do, I don't plead guilty to a heinous crime I didn't commit in which the outcome regardless is I know longer have a profession to work! SANE PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT!!!!
seldon
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
RuralMom, until you're charged with something, you have no idea what you might or might not do. Many people who have said what you've just said have wound up pleading no contest or guilty to a lesser charge when faced with having to fight a prosecution.
RuralMom
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
"Costlier"??? There is NO expense I would spare if I was totally innocent of the crime, especially one of this nature and given his profession!
RuralMom
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.
Well there's a interesting twist to this story! Must have been some video evidence that caused real concern for this about face to occur. Sad sad day!
leezee
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
Maybe he was just tired of having his name dragged through the mud. While I certainly don't condone peeping, particularly peeping on a child, it bothers me a bit that you can get into so much trouble with so little evidence for just looking out your bathroom window.
kr8tr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.
Most people would not give up and take a felony charge, losing their practice to keep their name from being dragged through the mud...that makes it worse.
just sayin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
What do you mean 'so little evidence'? He wasn't just 'looking' out of his window...
N. Todd
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
There was a search warrant was executed at Dr. Weinblatt's home on November 22. Computers and media storage devices were taken. It is possible there is more evidence than him simply looking out from his window. It also sounds like he may have been doing slightly more than just looking out the window. The fact that the Dr. plead no contest makes me believe what others 'thought' they saw in the video did indeed occur.
grye
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
What happens with his license after this plea?
sHa
Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
o
kr8tr
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 8:37 p.m.
The article says "his license will automatically be suspended because he was convicted of a felony, state licensing officials said. After his license is suspended, a hearing will be held to determine the next step..."
Opinionated
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
He will probably go in front of the medical board and get a one year suspension. They'll need to take his license out of mothballs once a gazillion people are added to the Medicaid rolls next year. The shortage of health care professionals will be too dire to keep him idle for long.
javajolt1
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
No Contest.....not exactly an aggressive assertion of innocence. Looks like after all the thousands of comments in all the articles accusing and defending the man, it turns out to be true. Sickening.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.
No innocent person, especially one of his profession, with his resources, and with his connections within the community, pleads "no contest," especially to a charge like this. It does not happen.
javajolt1
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
Technically true, but in a practical sense absurd. If I were accused of this and I was completely innocent, nothing would compel me to please Nolo. Nothing. I'd fight it to my dying breath.
Roadman
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
There has been no admision of guilt, but a criminal adjudication of such. I don't think the public is aware of all the facts.
Anthony Clark
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.
There has got to be something missing from this story. It seems very strange to me that he would simply plead no contest, essentially giving up. Why would you not fight the charges? Especially when you are being charged with a felony for looking out the window of your own home. Like I said, there is something here that isn't being told.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
johnnya2, A no contest plea is *not* a guilty plea. It is treated the same *for sentencing purposes only* , but it is not an admission of guilt. The court *does not* see it as an admission of guilt and because there has been no trial of the facts of the case, a no contest plea provides the defendant with certain benefits that an admission of guilt would not.
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
"No contest" means he is not contesting the charges. There's only one main reason people plead no contest, and that's because they can't contest the charges. He was obviously given the opportunity to save a little face here by the prosecutors office, an opportunity not every person in this situation gets. The fact that the prosecutor's office "agreed not to bring further charges" is quite a telling statement. It means they have the goods to bring further charges, but are giving him a break as part of the plea deal. It's also indicative of the strength of the case against him that his plea deal is to a felony, and not to one of the misdemeanors.
johnnya2
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.
Ypsilivin, Nice spin job. It IS a de facto guilty plea in the eyes of the law. Settling a cvivil trial when a criminal trial is pending would be a good strategy, BUT if the family sues him, he is not allowed to take the fifth.
babmay11
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
Because the mom has a video? Also, they never said what they found when they searched the computers & items in the home, so you don't know if there was something there that might have been incriminating.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.
A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt and it's not exactly "giving up." For the defendant, it often produces the best possible outcome under the circumstances. Technically, nolo contendere is a denial of guilt with the additional declaration that the accused does not wish to contest the facts of the case in a trial. One reason a person would plead "no contest" would be to prevent the outcome/facts of a criminal trial from being used against him in a later civil action. It's a common defense strategy for sex offenses. The courts like NCs because it means less work. In this case, the no contest plea also resulted in the defendant being placed on the "private" sex offender's list instead of the public one, plus it netted three dropped charge which will likely produce a reduced sentence for the defendant.
mkm17
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 5:28 p.m.
I agree that it seems we don't have all the facts. I thought I had read earlier that there is a precedent that an act cannot be defined as surveillance if it takes place from one's own home. Also, it would not seem reasonable to plead no contest unless there were actual evidence (the iPad video?) The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor, not on Dr. Weinblatt.
Paula Gardner
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
A reminder: We welcome comments on this story, but ask commenters to comply with our conversation guidelines.
david st. crystal
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
A reminder: we welcome articles, but ask that writers broadcasting the affairs of our community to a larger audience allow for open discussion of article content.
trespass
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.
Why is fatkitty allowed to speculate that his computer may have incriminating evidence on it?
YpsiVeteran
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
I'm really tired of people who equate being held to a standard of conduct on what amounts to private property with an assault on "free speech." Please open a book, and give it a rest. This is a privately-owned forum that you have no constitutional right to access, so do us all a favor and dial it down.
nicole
Tue, Jan 24, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
Thanks for being out baby sitter Paula. And for the muzzle on free speech.