However, the evidence also conclusively establishes that he rented and flew a Cessna 172 airplane beginning at 4:30 P.M. that day from Caldwell Airport in Fairfield, New Jersey and returned two hours later at 6:30 P.M. Regarding the videotape, defendant stated he had no objection to its introduction when, on October 16, 2000, it was offered into evidence at trial. She wanted to cool off and he waited a couple of hours and then he went looking for her and he found the towel and the suntan lotion but she was gone. Also, shortly after she vanished, he told his Southampton summer landlord that after his wife left he went through her drawers and found cocaine, prompting him to believe she went off with drug dealers. Courts have also considered the status or relationship to the declarant of the person to whom the statement was made *** whether there was a coercive atmosphere, whether it was made in response to questioning and whether the statements reflect an attempt to shift blame or curry favor (James, supra, 93 N.Y.2d at 642-643, 695 N.Y.S.2d 715, 717 N.E.2d 1052 [citing United U.S. v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 546; other citations omitted]). And if shes not alive, theres only one person who is a likely suspect to murder her, and its Bob. The victim, whom Wiese occasionally saw at family gatherings, telephoned him at his office one afternoon in the fall of 1983. Therefore, the trial justice's ruling was a careful and completely reasonable exercise of judicial discretion. denied 94 N.Y.2d 920, 708 N.Y.S.2d 359, 729 N.E.2d 1158 [crime against spouse extinguishes statutory privilege]; People v. Johnson, 84 N.Y.2d 956, 620 N.Y.S.2d 822, 644 N.E.2d 1378 [no statutory or common law parent/child privilege for adult child under these circumstances]), the court correctly decided that defendant waived the privilege. The record is replete with evidence depicting events and statements which motivated the victim to end her marriage. The magic didnt last long. While the attorneys and the court may have intuitively suspected what was on each other's mind, the legal process has not become, nor should it be, guesswork, mind reading, or fortune telling. The network is featuring the case Friday night on 20/20.. He also once choked Gail into unconsciousness after finding her smoking on their balcony. In addition, they sufficiently related to the circumstantial evidence the People offered, thus enabling the jury to understand medical and surgical matters beyond their ken and better evaluate the prosecution's theory (People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63). Defendant asserts that because there is evidence of only one earlier act of violence by him against his wife, this murder case should not be considered as a domestic violence homicide, and therefore there is no justification for the single alleged choking episode to be received in evidence along with various threats and other evidence of discord. It is this inappropriate and distracting inference which the Molineux ruling and its progeny aim to bar. Moreover, it is unlikely that one's body would vanish without a trace in the aftermath of self-inflicted death. He said the day ended with a Saturday evening, candlelight dinner in their apartment, but he again declined to discuss whether this interlude, described by him as romantic, helped resolve the argument. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. As for any suggested theory that someone other than defendant killed her, no proof exists in this record which is even remotely consistent with such speculation, and there is no one other than defendant Bierenbaum who, like he, had the motive or had the exclusive opportunity to kill her at the time and place where the victim was last seen alive; and, surely, there was no one who signaled his obvious guilt by covering and distorting the truth as this defendant repeatedly did. He never told investigators about the flight. The Washington State Department of Corrections manages all state-operated adult prisons and supervises adult incarcerated individuals who live in the community. at 293, 61 N.E. In addition to the foregoing powerful circumstantial evidence, the People contend that the interplay between certain items of evidence also supports the verdict. WebDr Robert Bierenbaum is sentenced in New York City to twenty years to life in prison for murdering his wife, Gail Katz-Bierenbaum, who disappeared 15 years ago; Judge Leslie Defendant also suggested to others that his wife was depressed and thus may have killed herself, disclosing also that she had tried to commit suicide years earlier. ABC News and the Times reported that investigators learned that Bierenbaum had gone to the Essex County Airport in Caldwell, New Jersey, on July 7, 1985, and taken out a small plane for about two hours. A jury convicted Robert Bierenbaum of second-degree murder based on circumstantial evidence that on July 7, 1985 he intentionally killed his wife, Gail Katz Instead, he consistently told the police and others that he remained in the marital apartment from the time the victim had left at 11:00 A.M., until 5:30 P.M., then going directly to his nephew's birthday party at his sister's New Jersey home; 6. People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 33-34, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334. Defendant and Dr. Feis spoke daily that first week, but during the first few calls she urged him to contact the police and to speak to the doorman. By using this website, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad Choices. Dalsass asked defendant for a list of the names and phone numbers of the victim's friends, relatives and others to facilitate the search efforts. In a domestic violence homicide, as this clearly is, it is highly probative-quite often far outweighing any prejudice-that a couple's marriage was strife-ridden and that defendant previously struck and/or threatened the spouse-victim (see People v. La France, 182 A.D.2d 598, 599-600, 583 N.Y.S.2d 835, lv. Indeed, the Lipsky court expressed no hesitancy in holding that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence (id. 79 N.Y.2d 673, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845 [uncharged evidence of prior assaultive acts may be admissible as background to support testimony that otherwise might be unbelievable or suspect]). Dalsass on Monday, July 8 and again on Sunday, July 14, he never said-indeed on July 8 he denied-that he and his wife argued that morning, even though Dalsass did acknowledge that defendant, on July 14, said the victim was pissed the morning she left. https://t.co/RWuaARMIay pic.twitter.com/6FoU3ze3wU, Uncovered (@uncovered) December 16, 2020. He saw three different doctors. Watch 20/20 Season 44 Episode 3 Do No Harm Online 20/20 S44 E3 Do No Harm The first wife of a Jekyll and Hyde Manhattan plastic surgeon mysteriously disappears. That is not to say that some of the many items of incriminating evidence, when each is evaluated in isolation, are not susceptible to arguable inferences which at first blush seem consistent with defendant's claim of innocence. (Photo courtesy of Alayne Katz). Robert Bierenbaum admitted he threw his wife's body out of an airplane and into the ocean nearly three decades ago during a parole hearing in December 2020, ABC We disagree. The court must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim (People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497, 419 N.Y.S.2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229). Although no DNA tests were available at the time to confirm whether the remains were that of the missing woman, it was assumed that Gail had been located, The Charley Project reported. Sentenced to 20 years to life after his October 2000 conviction, Bierenbaum became eligible for parole in 2020. I heard the cuffs close round hishands. We disagree. Bierenbaum, an experienced pilot who had been convicted on circumstantial evidence, was serving his 20 years-to-life prison sentence when he made the chilling confession during a December 2020 parole board hearing. The remains were buried, the article said. Furthermore, on July 14, while with his wife's friend Maryann DeCesare and a group of friends who were searching for her and posting missing person signs in Central Park and elsewhere, defendant quipped that he thought his wife-who was missing for a full week-was on a shopping spree at Bloomingdale's, adding, You know what a JAP1 she was. When the search party returned to the marital apartment-only seven days after his wife's disappearance-defendant volunteered to his mother-in-law, in DeCesare's presence, I wonder why the cat got sick. A few weeks after his wife disappeared, defendant began dating a nurse whom he knew from Maimonides Hospital where they were employed. Contact us. He dated a chiropractor for a while before remarrying in 1996 and moving with his new wife, gynecologist Dr. Janet Cholett, to Minot, North Dakota, where they had a daughter together and he opened a successful medical practice. According to the Times, she had talked Bierenbaum into seeking psychiatric help for his violent streak. He hasnt changed. Defendant counters this reasoning, contending that the 1983 choking incident and all the other evidence and references to threats and marital strife should have been precluded because they bespeak propensity and because the People improperly used the choking incident to suggest that defendant had a propensity for violence. Apart from the fact that there is no reliable evidence that anyone else saw or heard from her thereafter, defendant repeatedly admitted to several people, including his father, that he last saw her then. As for now, Robert was sent back to prison. That logic, which correctly served to preclude the doctors from testifying to the information they conveyed to and received from the family, does not apply to the existence and nature of the psychiatrist's letter whose separate purpose was only to warn a third party, this victim. At 9:00 P.M. the next night (July 8), he finally spoke to Detective Vergilio Dalsass, telling him that his wife left their apartment at 11:00 A.M. on July 7 to sunbathe in Central Park wearing pink shorts and a white t-shirt. Nevertheless, he contradicted himself among various versions and aspects of those statements. Indeed, his behavior utterly belies his claims of ignorance of his victim's whereabouts. In a December parole hearing, however, Bierenbaum, now 66, admitted for the first time that he strangled Gail Katz, 29, in July 1985. No murder weapon was ever found in either case, neither defendant confessed, neither murder was witnessed, and neither victim's body-or any remains-was ever found. Therefore, in the aggregate, the People convincingly advance the conclusion that the jury's verdict was correct. They could find no proof, however, that he had harmed his wife. Rather, it should be, and is, a process whereby trial attorneys announce an unambiguous objection, in praesenti, based on an articulated or otherwise known rationale involving logic, legal principles, and/or common sense, a protest which gives an adversary notice sufficient to frame a response, and affords the court an opportunity to issue a ruling. Most important, if there existed any lingering ambiguity about whether defense counsel had or had not registered a cognizable objection on October 11, defense counsel himself resolved it on October 16 when he said no objection at the moment the People actually offered the exhibits. His medical license was revoked Furthermore, defense counsel's earlier language on October 11, 2000 purporting to object was premature and, in any event, legally inadequate to constitute an objection (id.). In it, they located a handwritten entry which appeared to have been changed from the original notation of 7/7/85 to the substituted date of 8/7/85. Because defendant did not have a list with him, Dalsass said he would call defendant's home for it that evening. The court did, however, permit the prosecution to adduce testimony that the victim had received a letter from one of these psychiatrists warning her of the danger defendant posed to her, although the justice prohibited the People from introducing the letter itself. His next parole hearing is slated for next month. Not a single shred of evidence in this record supports any of these bizarre claims; 5. In that 1858 case, the Court of Appeals held, without direct proof of the death, or of the violence or other act of the defendant which is alleged to have produced death, a murder conviction may not stand (id. He can hardly claim with any credibility that an interlude of that nature and length slipped his mind when he spoke to the police and others on the first day, or, indeed, at least four times during the first week, following his wife's unexplained disappearance. denied 94 N.Y.2d 904, 707 N.Y.S.2d 389, 728 N.E.2d 988; People v. Bonilla, 251 A.D.2d 82, 674 N.Y.S.2d 23, lv. Sgt. It is beyond cavil that this information was relevant and that it was exactly the type they implored him to convey. This Court has reviewed these various instructions given during trial and at its end. Meanwhile, her husband moved on and began seeing other women. I went flying. Starcasm Staff October 22, 2021 20/20, True Crime. The victim would complain also that defendant tried to exert excessive control over her, and she expressed fear of him more than once. The trial testimony and physical exhibits revealed the following: In 1982 defendant and the victim married. Illustrative-but not exhaustive-are the following examples: 1. Moreover, he told Dr. Feis-after withholding the whole truth from others, and from her during their many earlier conversations subsequent to July 7-that his last encounter with his wife on July 7 ended in an argument more severe than he had previously let on, that it had become explosive, and that in its midst he had failed to heed his psychiatrist's advice to defuse the situation. More specifically, he also admitted to his father that they had difficulty in adjusting to each other, and in 1983 [t]hat they had an argument, had some physical contact. By way of corroboration, Dr. Leigh McCullough testified that in November 1983 she saw finger shaped bruises on the victim's neck, and the latter told her that defendant choked her when he became angry at seeing her smoking a cigarette. 3in. Defendant next argues that the claimed relevancy of the Tarasoff letter does not justify its introduction because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. He also failed to mention to both Det. READ NEXT: Robert Bierenbaum Today: Where Is the Surgeon Now in 2021? No witness disputed that their discord and fighting reached a level characterized by threats against the victim and at least one previous violent act by defendant against her. Without objection, the prosecution showed the jury a videotape specifically prepared for trial, demonstrating how defendant could have accomplished this from the point of loading the 110-pound body onto the plane, discarding it over the ocean, and landing back at the same airport. There was no foregone conclusion to this case, by any stretch of the imagination.. Defendant offered that Gail had, years earlier, attempted suicide. First, the court correctly ruled that defendant's objection in the form of a mistrial motion, after summations were completely over, was belated (see People v. Allende, 269 A.D.2d 211, 704 N.Y.S.2d 206, lv. In the days, weeks, months and years following his wife's disappearance, defendant made several inconsistent, unfounded or otherwise suspect and incriminating statements. Confidential information privileged. The existence of a physical shock or trauma has often been cited as a key consideration (see People v. Brooks, 71 N.Y.2d 877, 527 N.Y.S.2d 753, 522 N.E.2d 1051; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d at 516-517, 522 N.Y.S.2d 837, 517 N.E.2d 515;6 Wigmore, Evidence 1745[1] [Chadbourn rev. Gail Katz reported the assault at a local police precinct, but nothing came of the report. When he later returned, he tersely remarked to his roommate that it was not his wife. He was convicted in October 2000 of having murdered his estranged wife, Gail Katz-Bierenbaum 15 years earlier in their Manhattan apartment on July 7, 1985. Stream next day on Hulu. To that same end, she also planned to threaten to expose his and his father's alleged multimillion-dollar Medicare fraud. On the other hand, the acts and/or threats can-separately or together-demonstrate as they do in the instant case defendant's specific intent to hurt a particular human being, i.e., in this case, his wife, and to do so physically and emotionally. We hold otherwise. The former plastic surgeon, who is in prison for the killing, admitted to the parole board in December 2020 that he strangled Katz, 29, before loading her body onto a Cessna 172 and tossing it into the Atlantic Ocean. About midway through their one-year relationship, defendant gave his approval to have Dr. Karnofsky's girlfriend, Sharon, also move into the apartment temporarily. He thus claims that those cases do not apply to permit such evidence under these facts because this case involves evidence of only one prior assault. The case continued to nag at Andy Rosenzweig, chief investigator for the Manhattan District Attorneys Office, and he and other detectives began re-interviewing everyone involved in the missing persons case, according to the network. Exposing these transgressions, if it did not disgrace him, would most certainly compromise his professional standing, damage his personal reputation, and injure his short- and long-term career plans and income potential. Based on what he said at trial, the interval could have been as long as twenty-four hours, hardly a typical time span to qualify as an excited utterance. Second, the record is totally devoid of evidence about what transpired during these many intervening hours to enable the trier of fact to determine, based on the activities of the declarant in the interim, whether the declarant had the opportunity to reflect (id.). As this Court stated in Farrow v. Allen, 194 A.D.2d 40, 608 N.Y.S.2d 1, once a patient authorizes his or her psychiatrist to release, what might otherwise be, a privileged letter to a third party who is completely unconnected to his or her treatment and who is not subject to any other privilege, its release is sufficient to waive the privilege as to the information contained in the letter itself (id. Rather, the tape's contents clearly demonstrate the feasibility of the People's theory of this case, a theory which all of the circumstantial proof together overwhelmingly shows. Neither her body nor her remains has ever been found. He didnt understand how to deal with his anger, Bierenbaum said, according to the transcript.
Colorado Emissions Testing Requirements,
National Funding Alliance,
Shooting In Lawrenceburg, Ky,
Mexican Culture Activities For Students,
Articles R