JUPITER, Fla. – UPDATE: A judge has granted Uber driver Gary Kitchings $250,000 bond. It is unclear if he has bonded out of jail yet.
Could the local Uber driver accused of raping a woman he brought home from SunFest get out on bond?
That’s the question a Palm Beach County judge is currently deciding. The defendant, Gary Kitchings, is currently being held in jail without bond for the May attack.
Wednesday morning, Kitching’s defense attorney went to court to argue that Kitchings has a right to pre-trial release.
The judge’s written order should be issued sometime Thursday.
The defense is arguing that this sexual encounter was consensual. They maintain that the evidence supports their version of events. However, they also say a pending rape case out of New York
calls the victim’s and her story into question.
The state called two officers involved in the case to the stand. Both testified about her report of the rape and the fact that the alleged victim was traumatized.
However, Kitchings’ defense maintains that the encounter was consensual, and pointed out that while the victim claims part of the assault took place in the car, the physical evidence doesn’t match that.
The defense also pointing out that the woman who accused Kitchings is also the alleged victim in another rape case pending in New York.
The two cases have similarly disturbing details, according to the defense.
“In this case she is alleging that, there is kind of, some strange sexual activity occurred. Had I known that there was some strange sexual activity that occurred in the New York case as well, I would have confronted her with exactly the things that were stated,” said public defender Stephen Arbuzow.
According to Abruzow and a New York Post article, the woman met her alleged attacker through a “sugar daddy” app called “Seeking Arrangements,” which claim that she was working as an “S&M prostitute.”
Abruzow claims the woman was not forthcoming about that during her initial deposition.
Which is why they also argued Wednesday that they should get a second chance to question the victim under oath.
The judge agreed but made it clear the attorney could only ask about the New York case.