He urges now-as he did at trial-that the court could have served the People's purpose adequately by only allowing the People to use the letter to inform the jury that the letter existed, and stipulating that its unspecified contents would embarrass defendant. He hasnt changed. She told Wiese she was speaking quickly and softly because she was expecting defendant. Defendant contends that the court improperly allowed the prosecution to adduce testimony, and otherwise refer to evidence, that defendant was violent, and that he choked his wife to the point of unconsciousness in late 1983. Robert Bierenbaum, an experienced pilot, was serving his 20 years-to-life prison sentence when he made the chilling confession during a December 2020 parole board hearing. From the rental office's vantage point, one would not have been able to see defendant on the tarmac getting ready to board-and possibly load luggage or other items onto-the plane, which was in a position readily accessible by automobile for such purposes. Turning next to defendant's hearsay claims, he argues that the trial justice erroneously allowed several People's witnesses to testify that the victim had told them that, inter alia, her marriage was stormy, that she was afraid of defendant, that he was very controlling, that there was much verbal strife between them, that her husband had occasionally made threatening statements to her, that he once choked her in 1983 rendering her unconscious, that she had taken steps to prepare to leave him, and that she had used and intended again to use the Tarasoff letter to threaten him if he failed to meet her divorce demands. Whether earlier acts of alleged violence or threats are admissible depends on the circumstances surrounding both the past and the currently charged aggressive acts or threats. Surgeon Who Murdered Wife Confesses To Killing Medical Examiner's Testimony and Videotaped Demonstration. Dr. Karnofsky also remembered a phone call defendant received one morning at three o'clock, a few months after she moved in. denied 92 N.Y.2d 893, 680 N.Y.S.2d 57, 702 N.E.2d 842). Days turned to months, and months to years with no sign of Katz. A surgeon who murdered his wife admitted to the killing more than 30 years later. They could find no proof, however, that he had harmed his wife. I opened the door and then took her body out of the airplane over the ocean, the transcript reads, according to ABC News. However, in a strange turn of events, Robert decided to confess during a 2020 parole hearing and claimed that he had strangled Gail to death before flying out with her body and dumping it into the Atlantic Ocean. Instead, he falsely told both detectives, on a total of at least three occasions, that he stayed in his Manhattan apartment all day until 5:30 P.M., emphasizing to Dalsass that he was positive that he left [his apartment] at 5:30 [P.M.]. He also changed his claim that on July 7 he had spoken to the doorman who, he had originally maintained, said he saw the victim leave the building Sunday shortly after 11:00 A.M. It is clear to us that a finding other than guilt would not have been reasonable. 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 Bierenbaum, in their Manhattan apartment; transported her body to a New Jersey airport the same day; loaded it onto a small private plane; and piloted it over the Atlantic Ocean where he discarded her remains. Later the same day, around 6:30 P.M., defendant arrived alone at his sister's Montclair, New Jersey, home for his nephew's birthday party. There is little or nothing by way of circumstantial evidence that is more relevant or more probative in a circumstantial murder case-especially one involving domestic violence-than the type of evidence at issue on this appeal. Defendant also argues that although this contested hearsay information, emanating from the victim, was admitted purportedly as legitimate background evidence, there is no background exception to the hearsay rule, and, beyond that, this background information was highly prejudicial, and, therefore, the trial justice should have precluded it. Bierenbaum was on the staff of Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn. Robert Bierenbaum admitted he threw his wifes body out of an airplane and into the ocean nearly three decades ago during a parole hearing in December 2020. ed.] In late July or early August, defendant asked her out, and they became intimate on their first date. According to the Times, she had talked Bierenbaum into seeking psychiatric help for his violent streak. The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant had the opportunity, the motive, and the intent to kill his victim, and that it was he who did so. On another occasion, while the couple was watching a television program about the Von Bulow murder case, defendant told the victim that the problem with Claus Von Bulow is that he left evidence and [defendant] would not leave evidence. The testimony revealed that the victim perceived this statement as a threat. He was convicted in her death in 2000, but her body was never found. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620; People v. Norton, 164 A.D.2d 343, 353, 563 N.Y.S.2d 802, affd. We disagree with defendant and find them fair and legally satisfactory. 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]). He admitted that during the July 7 argument he failed to heed his psychiatrist's advice to try to defuse the situation and that this argument on the day she disappeared became explosive. He told others that he and the victim argued just before she left for Central Park to cool off; another that a private investigator he had hired found evidence she was living in California probably with financial help from her family; others that she had a drug problem, that she may have disappeared with drug dealers and that she probably was murdered by her druggie friends; others that she may have run off to live with someone in the Caribbean; and others that his missing wife was seen after July 7, 1985 in some type of fugue state in the Central Park area and that it was unlikely she would return. But last week, a Manhattan jury found Dr. Bierenbaum guilty of killing his first wife and dumping her body from an airplane. 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. All of Bierenbaums appeals over the years were unsuccessful. It was therefore highly relevant to the question of defendant's motive that the jury be allowed to know and consider the consequences the victim intended by threatening defendant with such a disclosure to his superiors and peers, a disclosure which would likely compromise severely his professional status, his personal reputation and standing, and his economic future. Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) On one occasion a co-worker overheard defendant in a common work area arguing loudly with his wife over the telephone. The proof more than adequately supports the jury's determinations. In addition, he made contradictory statements to the police and others about whether he cleaned his living room rug shortly after July 7, telling the police he did not, but telling the victim's friend, Dr. Feis, and others that he had. Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. He is now eligible for parole and faces a parole hearing in November. 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. Offensive Slang A Jewish-American girl or woman regarded as being pampered or overindulged (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 935 [4th ed 2000]). of Cal., supra, at p. 442, 131 Cal.Rptr. The proof is most telling that on the very day the victim disappeared, she intended to confront defendant with her decision to leave him. Defendant described differently to different people the items the victim took and the clothes she wore when she purportedly left to sunbathe in Central Park, and whether she was then wearing shoes and her engagement ring; 3. I went flying. (Photo courtesy of Alayne Katz). However, the proof here evinces defendant's intent to focus his aggression on one person, namely, his wife-his victim. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal.Rptr. He is incapable of a shred of remorse.. Furthermore, although defendant told friends he searched for the deceased in Central Park on July 7 between 11:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. and found her towel and suntan oil in the park, he never shared that highly significant detail with O'Malley or Dalsass on the two interviews each had held with him during the seven days following July 7. WebSTATE OF NEW YORK BOARD OF PAROLE APPEALS UNIT FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION Name: Bierenbaum, RobertDIN:00-A-7114 Facility: Otisville CF AC denied 75 N.Y.2d 924, 555 N.Y.S.2d 43, 554 N.E.2d 80 as follows: [w]hen reviewing a case based exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People [citations omitted], and it must be assumed that the jury credited the People's witnesses and gave the People's evidence the full weight that might reasonably be accorded it [People v. Benzinger, supra; other citations omitted].. Dalsass waited until 12:30 A.M. and left the first of approximately eight messages on defendant's home answering machine and at his work number during the ensuing week. He again omitted on July 14 to tell Dalsass-and O'Malley as well the day before-that he was a licensed pilot, rented a plane in New Jersey, and flew it for two hours from 4:30 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. on July 7. This Court has reviewed these various instructions given during trial and at its end. We disagree. Surgeon Admits to Throwing Wife Out However, notwithstanding that, initially, the police carefully explained to him at least three times their critical need to know every detail he was able to recall in order to aid their search efforts, he withheld all of this information during their interview with him-one encounter a mere 34 hours, and the others all within 7 days, following his wife's disappearance. Defendant responded to none of them. That exception provides that for compelling policy reasons the privilege can be overcome when the patient demonstrates that he poses a clear and present danger to a third party-in this case his wife. On the facts here, it is reasonable to assign a moderate degree of probative force to the false statements [emphasis added]. Her body was never found and the great weight of the evidence shows that she was anything but desperate or depressed so that one might reasonably fear she was contemplating suicide. Prosecutors who convicted Bierenbaum were stunned by his admission to the parole board, particularly because the confession mirrored the states theory of the crime in 1999, when Bierenbaum was charged with second-degree murder. bierenbaum parole 2020 She expressed this homicide theory to Sharon one day while defendant was not home. During that meeting he told O'Malley that he drove his father's Cadillac to his sister's New Jersey home on July 7, instead of his own [smaller] Datsun, as his car allegedly had mechanical problems. Finally, the victim chose to call an attorney, rather than a lay person, one with whom she did not have an especially close, personal and confidential relationship. Together, the two women looked for and found defendant's flight log. 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. The defense argues that these rulings were improper because: 1) there was no evidentiary foundation to justify the opinion evidence and the scenario depicted in the video demonstration, i.e., that they were purportedly based on speculation; and because 2) these forms of evidence are extremely potent, inflammatory, and therefore they unduly prejudiced defendant in a case like this where, according to him, there is no proof to support the opinions or the scenario shown on tape. 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. The New York Times reported in 1999 that authorities believed he spent hours dismembering Katzs body before taking flight and dumping it into the water somewhere between Montauk Point, New York, and Cape May, New Jersey. Notwithstanding these and other direct, uncomplicated admonitions, defendant omitted telling Det. However, this faint expression, on its face, is nothing more than a prediction that defendant might-or probably will in futuro-object to the video. Should we answer that inquiry in the affirmative, we next must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony (People ex rel. Molineux authorizes a trial justice to consider allowing a jury to hear about a defendant's prior bad acts-be they violent or otherwise-if they shed light on the issues of intent, identity, motive, absence of accident or mistake, or common plan and scheme (id. Beyond that, the proof also clearly shows how he went about it, that she did not kill herself, nor that any boyfriend or drug dealer killed her. 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. The company is family owned and highly values relationships often going beyond the call of duty to help a customer. rendered November 29, 2000, affirmed. Investigators believe Bierenbaum strangled her in their Upper East Side apartment before disposing of the body, the article said. He stated he had remained behind in their apartment until 5:30 P.M. before leaving for his sister's New Jersey home. 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 His medical license was revoked This entire case leaves no doubt whatever that the contents of the videotape depict a scenario that was anything but speculation. The Charley Project 255; Workman v. Boylan Buick, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 978, 979, 321 N.Y.S.2d 983; In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100-101). Her remains have never been found, although a body washed ashore in Staten Island that investigators initially believed to be Katz Bierenbaum. Defendant essentially admitted as much, and was heard to say, more than once, that during one argument there was physical contact, that their last argument was explosive and severe, and that he was frustrated in his marriage because they argued constantly. 224, 177 N.W. Cigarettes were not allowed in their home, according to Bierenbaum. People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 134 N.E.2d 475.) At a parole hearing in December 2020, he confessed to killing his wife and dumping her body from a At the time, the plastic surgeon claimed innocence, but that has all changed. 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]). 20 [2]). (Id.). Bierenbaum, now 66, convicted of the murder in 2000 under circumstantial evidence, had continually denied any involvement in her death, told a parole hearing in Dalsass expressed frustration over defendant's lack of cooperation and his delays in returning phone calls and providing the police with information to aid their search efforts. https://t.co/ZGewROXCaQ pic.twitter.com/qwTytMjU2s. 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 Moreover, his behavior with other women so soon after July 7 is inconsistent with behavior one would reasonably anticipate from a husband whose wife had mysteriously disappeared, notwithstanding that their marriage was stormy. In fact, defendant even misstated to Det. The jury saw this altered document. Mar 15, 1999. Parker Sentenced To Life In Prison | The Seattle Times Defendant displayed no reaction, [h]e didn't say anything.. SEATTLE - Robert Parker, spared the death penalty last week, was sentenced today to life in prison without the possibility of parole. 4. Katz and Bierenbaum met in the early 1980s in Manhattan and had what initially seemed to be a magical romance, Katzs sister, Alayne Katz, told ABC News. denied 93 N.Y.2d 879, 689 N.Y.S.2d 441, 711 N.E.2d 655), and its denial of the motion was a discretionary decision we perceive no reason to disturb. 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. 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. Thus, it is impossible for a court to conclude safely that her motivation was untouched by economic self-interest or unencumbered by concerns about legal strategy. This conclusion is effortlessly drawn not nearly so much because he began dating so soon, but much more because of his obvious and expressed confidence his wife would never return. Dr. Robert Bierenbaum and his then-wife, Dr. Janet Cholett, leave court together in October 2000 in New York. Alayne Katz and other witnesses would later testify, however, that they had seen one of the letters, which Gail Katz planned to use in the divorce proceedings. All rights reserved. Bierenbaum confessed to killing his wife during a parole hearing in December 2020, saying they were fighting and he wanted her to stop yelling, according to the New ABC 20/20 is revealing new details in the case in its episode tonight. That anything said, however insignificant it could possibly be used to find her and locate her , I told the defendant that he should give me a narration of the time he spent over the last weekend. And if shes not alive, theres only one person who is a likely suspect to murder her, and its Bob. [S]peaking in very hushed tones and very rapidly and sound[ing] extremely upset, she said that either the day before or the night before she had a fight with her husband and that during the course of that fight he had choked her into unconsciousness According to Wiese, she added that this was not the first time that they had fought nor the first time he had choked her, but it was the first time she was rendered unconscious and that she was extremely upset. She apparently spoke quickly because she expected defendant to return shortly, and she needed to know what she should do. It is on the basis of that history and its relevance to proving an element of the crime charged-and, as well, after the court balances probative value against potential prejudice-that a court may determine the admissibility of prior evidence of aggressiveness, be it acts of domestic violence, threats or otherwise. Bierenbaum was found guilty of second-degree murder in October 2000. Bierenbaum described himself as immature at the time of the murder, for which he is serving 20 years to life. In other words, they may be admitted only if the acts help establish some element of the crime under consideration (People v. Lewis, 69 N.Y.2d 321, 325, 514 N.Y.S.2d 205, 506 N.E.2d 915). 286 and its progeny. They also manifest his motives to abuse and control her, to quickly end a miserable marriage, and ultimately to keep her from using the Tarasoff letter in a divorce proceeding to humiliate him, damage his reputation, imperil his career and jeopardize his financial future. That defendant was the last person who saw her, and who was known to have been alone with her until 11:00 A.M. that day, cannot be persuasively disputed on the basis of this record. Since none of the three of these relatives was involved in providing defendant treatment nor subject to any other privilege (see Poppe v. Poppe, 3 N.Y.2d 312, 165 N.Y.S.2d 99, 144 N.E.2d 72 [marital privilege inapplicable where one spouse wrongs another]; People v. Davis, 226 A.D.2d 125, 640 N.Y.S.2d 53, lv. Do No Harm We reject the notion that in a case where an alleged homicide is the second alleged violent act against a spouse-instead of, for example, the third, fourth or ninth-the case may not be treated as a domestic violence homicide for purposes of evidentiary rulings. Therefore, in the aggregate, the People convincingly advance the conclusion that the jury's verdict was correct. There was no foregone conclusion to this case, by any stretch of the imagination.. DNA tests showed the body was not Katz-Bierenbaum, the missing persons website reported. Fourth, he urges that the court incorrectly allowed the People to introduce opinion testimony by a medical examiner, and demonstrative and opinion evidence by a police pilot and two other experts, that it is possible for a surgeon/pilot, alone, to dismember a 110-pound body in 10 minutes, load a 36-inch long package containing the body's disarticulated remains onto a small airplane, and, also while alone in the air, throw it into the ocean. Thereafter, commencing in September 1985 and continuing for a period just under one year, defendant invited a medical student, Dr. Roberta Karnofsky, who worked under his direct supervision at Coney Island Hospital, to live with him in the marital apartment. As for defendant's remaining reliability claims, they raise questions quite properly within the jury's province. MacCracken v. Miller, 291 N.Y. 55, 62, 50 N.E.2d 542 [other citations omitted]). However, defendant said he would not be home until later, as he had plans to dine out-after an interview which had focused on his wife's sudden disappearance just 34 hours earlier. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638; Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 89, 91 S.Ct. The magic didnt last long. She was also determined to make it clear to defendant that she would use a letter, written to her by his psychiatrist warning her of the danger he posed to her, in order to humiliate him with his professional peers should he refuse to meet her divorce settlement demands. Defendant correctly argues that the victim's statements during her telephone call to Hillard Wiese do not constitute excited utterances. As the Court of Appeals recently wrote in People v. Vasquez, 88 N.Y.2d 561, 579, 647 N.Y.S.2d 697, 670 N.E.2d 1328: An excited utterance is one made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses, and during the brief period when consideration of self-interest could not have been brought fully to bear by reasoned reflection (People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d [513] at 518, 522 N.Y.S.2d 837, 517 N.E.2d 515). To one of his Southampton summer housemates in July 1985, with a demeanor described as lacking in emotion, he said he and his wife fought on July 7 and she had taken a towel and some suntan lotion and had gone to Central Park. O'Malley inquiring how the investigation was proceeding and met with him on July 13. 9. NYC surgeon admits to killing his wife by throwing her out of a plane https://t.co/RWuaARMIay pic.twitter.com/6FoU3ze3wU, Uncovered (@uncovered) December 16, 2020. 14, 551 P.2d 334), to the victim. Was Gail Katz-Bierenbaums Body Found Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. In 2000, former plastic surgeon Robert Bierenbaum was convicted of the 1985 murder of his wife Gail Katz. 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. That key factor in the context of marital or other intimate relationships frequently differentiates domestic violence assaults and homicides-wherein prior bad acts have often been deemed admissible during the People's direct case-from other cases wherein evidence of past assaultive behavior against people other than the victim has most properly been precluded.
2005 Ford Taurus Pros And Cons,
Devawn Moreno Kingston,
Articles R