The clear and direct language the Lipsky court selected to disavow the 124-year-old Ruloff ruling is significant in light of the Ruloff facts, because those facts are, in several key ways, similar to those at bar. Verbal strife plagued it, express and implied threats uttered by defendant aggravated it, and defendant's admitted violence against his victim during at least one episode surely worsened it. That the victim had once before confronted him with the same letter and her same threat weeks or months before July 7 does not, as defendant now urges, diminish the potential explosiveness of her intended confrontation on the weekend she died, because the testimony is otherwise clear and certain that she once again intended to tell defendant over that weekend that she was divorcing him. Another woman whom he dated in Las Vegas in 1995 asked him on their first date whether he had ever been married. 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. The proof is most telling that on the very day the victim disappeared, she intended to confront defendant with her decision to leave him. Dalsass could not speak to defendant to obtain that vital information until the July 14 interview. However, in the July 8 interview, he had specifically denied that the reason she left the apartment at 11:00 A.M. to sunbathe in Central Park was related to an argument that morning. 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. Furthermore, in a case based on circumstantial evidence-as this is-we must also adhere to the dictates of People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 32, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334 expressed again in People v. Seifert, 152 A.D.2d 433, 440, 548 N.Y.S.2d 971, lv. 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. However, the trial justice specifically stated her ruling did not apply to preclude the letter's existence and nature. Gail Katz once called her sister, weeping, and said that her husband tried drowning her cat in a toilet at their Upper East Side apartment, Alayne Katz said. I wanted her to stop yelling at me and I attacked her, Bierenbaum told the parole board, according to the transcript. 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 The company is family owned and highly values relationships often going beyond the call of duty to help a customer. 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. He also said that he hated the victim so much, and that she would get him so upset, that he wanted to kill her. 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. In fact, defendant even misstated to Det. He was inconsistent about his purported knowledge of his wife's post-July 7 whereabouts, alluding to different theories and purported sightings to different people. Consequently, although defendant had contact with Det. They saw each other socially about five times over the next six weeks, until she abruptly ended their relationship because, in her view, he unjustifiably attacked her verbally one evening in a restaurant. 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. When he later returned, he tersely remarked to his roommate that it was not his wife. Family and friends reported, however, that Katz wanted to divorce her husband. To them he insisted that he had remained in the apartment until 5:30 P.M. without leaving at all. He thus argues that her ruling necessarily extends to preclude the People from also proving the existence and nature of the Tarasoff letter. Defendant was pretty surprised and stunned and asked her what she knew. Notwithstanding defendant's argument, this limitation was, under these circumstances, an exercise of discretion which was fair to both sides for the following important reason. We disagree with defendant and find them fair and legally satisfactory. 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. 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. 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. 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). The trial justice rejected the People's pre-trial request to call defendant's treating psychiatrists and psychologist as witnesses to testify about factual matters and opinions connected to their treatment of defendant, including the conversations they had with the victim and defendant's parents, after defendant's consent was procured. He was convicted in her death in 2000, but her body was never found. 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 News reported. Once over the ocean, Rowley slowed the plane, took both hands off the controls, opened the passenger door and easily shoved the duffel bag out, the article said. We disagree. In the former, the previous aggression principally indicates intent, or motive, or identity; whereas in the latter it can predominantly give rise to an inference of propensity. While married to defendant, the victim had an affair with at least one other man; just before the day she disappeared she stated to a friend she was about to tell defendant she wanted a divorce; she had borrowed money to prepare to leave; she said she was seeing one or two other men and that she loved one of them; she was looking for an apartment and was seen with circled newspaper ads for apartment rentals the day before she disappeared and her friend had offered her a place in Connecticut to stay while she got herself resettled. Authorities could not use the actual plane they say Bierenbaum flew because another pilot later crashed the plane, the article said. Finally, this evidence shows that this defendant was motivated and had an intent to harm this victim. 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. SEATTLE - Robert Parker, spared the death penalty last week, was sentenced today to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Gail Katz is pictured in a family photo. Dr. Robert Bierenbaum, a trained pilot serving 20 years to life in prison, admitted to the crime at a parole hearing for the first time since his wife, Gail Katz, 29, Although defendant would not allow any police officers to view or inspect his apartment until September 30, 1985-and then only with severe restrictions-he, long before that day, falsely stated to others that the police had searched his home and car and found him to be clean; and. Robert Bierenbaum (born July 22, 1955) is an American former plastic surgeon and convicted murderer. It is, simply put, not a ruling in response to an actual objection based on then existing circumstances (see People v. Luperon, supra, at 78, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735, 647 N.E.2d 1243; cf. Katz-Bierenbaums family requested that the remains be reexamined in 1997 when DNA testing became available, according to The Charley Project. 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. 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. As defendant now also argues that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, this Court, in its unique factual reviewing role, must also determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). And if shes not alive, theres only one person who is a likely suspect to murder her, and its Bob. 14, 551 P.2d 334). He was the individual that las[t] saw her in the apartment. Surely, one can argue as defendant does that any single aggressive act or threat, or a series of them, can suggest to a jury a general propensity to behave aggressively. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1025, 697 N.Y.S.2d 584, 719 N.E.2d 945 [prior assault admissible]; People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 573 N.Y.S.2d 965, affd. 576 ratings36 reviews. The Court of Appeals has made that clear. Moreover, the ruling was correct also because of the Tarasoff exception to the CPLR 4504(a) privilege. We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. 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). They were both 29 at the time of her killing, and he told the parole board he was immature and did not know how to contain his anger, the Daily News reported. https://t.co/RWuaARMIay pic.twitter.com/6FoU3ze3wU, Uncovered (@uncovered) December 16, 2020. At the time, the plastic surgeon claimed innocence, but that has all changed. However, on July 10, he called Det. She said that he, not for the first time, had choked her, although this was the first time she was thereby rendered unconscious. I wanted her to stop yelling at me and I attacked her, Bierenbaum said, according to a hearing transcript obtained by the network. I wanted her to stop yelling at me and I attacked her, he said, according to the article. As for the opinion testimony, the court exercised its discretion properly by admitting the medical examiner's expert testimony. Like his wife, he was 29 years old when she vanished. But, when one attentively reviews and critically assesses all the circumstantial evidence, cast in its aggregated and interwoven symmetry, and after applying all natural and reasonable inferences, the conclusion that defendant murdered his wife on July 7, 1985 becomes inescapable, and the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. rendered November 29, 2000, affirmed. Ive waited for that sound a long time. The jury got the case on Monday. Cigarettes were not allowed in their home, according to Bierenbaum. Dalsass' office arranged by the deceased's sister Alayne Katz, and with her parents and defendant's father also present, Dalsass interviewed defendant again face-to-face. at 293, 61 N.E. Notwithstanding these and other direct, uncomplicated admonitions, defendant omitted telling Det. After killing Katz, he got rid of her body where no one would find it. All rights reserved. However, apparently also on July 8, defendant told the victim's therapist, Dr. Sybil Baran, that he and the victim had argued and that she'd gone off in a huff; 8. At one point while they lived together, on a day that Dr. Karnofsky was angry or annoyed with defendant, and, having heard a number of accusatory answering machine messages directed at defendant, she confronted him to see what his reaction [would be]: What I said to him was, well, I think that if you did this and if it really happened as some people seem to think it did, that perhaps something happened in the apartment and you intentionally or unintentionally-Gail was hurt, you could have put her in one of those big flight bags or duffel bags and carried her out of the apartment since she was very small, put her in the back of your car, drive out to the airport and thrown her body out of the plane. We note further that the court exercised its discretion appropriately by rulings which significantly and thoughtfully limited the People. 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. Defendant himself said his wife told him she wanted a divorce. However, the court, while prohibiting publication of its specific factual contents to the jury, did allow the jury to know that the letter warned the victim of the danger defendant posed to her. They both complained many times to many people that their marriage was loveless and their life together was stormy. 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. In our sufficiency review, we have determined that a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by [this jury] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367). His flight path took him over the ocean. We also conclude that even if a different finding were somehow deemed reasonable, there can be no rational view after weigh[ing] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony,'(People v. MacCracken ex rel. https://t.co/ZGewROXCaQ pic.twitter.com/qwTytMjU2s. He became eligible for parole last October, according to state prison records. Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N.Y. 213, 223-224, 61 N.E. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. [S]peaking in very hushed tones and very rapidly and, sounding extremely upset, she told him that she and defendant had a fight the night or day before. To the contrary, it was her professional opinion, based on three years of treating the deceased once or twice weekly, that she was not suicidal. They argue that when certain established facts are juxtaposed with other proven circumstances, defendant's multiple contradictions and omissions are patently incriminating. 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. He never told investigators about the flight. People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642, 511 N.Y.S.2d 586, 503 N.E.2d 1017). The trial testimony and physical exhibits revealed the following: In 1982 defendant and the victim married. denied 78 N.Y.2d 974, 574 N.Y.S.2d 954, 580 N.E.2d 426). 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.). ABC News reports Robert Bierenbaum made the confession during a parole board hearing in December 2020, about 36 years after his wife, Gail Katz, went missing in New York City. Gail Katz Bierenbaum Murder: Her Cause of Death, Copyright 2023 Heavy, Inc. All rights reserved. Defendant's lies, misstatements and omissions powerfully bespeak his consciousness of guilt. Therefore, even though the victim's phone conversation with Wiese was erroneously admitted as excited utterances, its core content was nonetheless relevant, admissible, and the jury properly heard about it from other witnesses. He saw three different doctors. ABC 20/20 is revealing new details in the case in its episode tonight. 2. The victim would complain also that defendant tried to exert excessive control over her, and she expressed fear of him more than once. When defendant returned to their Manhattan apartment, he telephoned his wife's friend and former psychology teacher, Dr. Yvette Feis. 3in. In Nucci, the Court set forth the factors relevant to a trial justice's assessment of the reliability of out-of-court-statements which the People proffer as hearsay exceptions. 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 York Daily News. Sentenced to 20 years to life after his October 2000 conviction, Bierenbaum became eligible for parole in 2020. That the victim died July 7, 1985 is conceded. In People v. Cintron, 95 N.Y.2d 329, 332-333, 717 N.Y.S.2d 72, 740 N.E.2d 217, the Court said that the probative weight of evidence of consciousness of guilt is highly dependent upon the facts of each particular case. In an earlier case, specifically referring to a defendant's false statements, the Court said: In the circumstances of this case, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that these false statements indicate a consciousness of guilt. Furthermore, when defendant spoke to Det. 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. 1. Judged by that standard, we find and hold that the circumstantial evidence adduced at this trial decisively extinguishes any doubt that defendant Robert Bierenbaum, and no one else, intentionally killed his wife Gail Katz Bierenbaum, brought her body to Caldwell Airport in Fairfield, New Jersey, loaded it onto a small plane, flew it over the Atlantic Ocean, and, there, dumped her remains. Matthew Rowley hoisted the bag into the front passenger seat of the plane, a four-seat Cessna 172, similar to the plane investigators said Bierenbaum rented. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert BIERENBAUM, Defendant-Appellant. It is clear to us that the highly probative nature of this particular proof on the critical questions of defendant's motive and intent, and of the killer's identity, far outweighs any prejudice (see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808). On July 8, 1985, Bierenbaum called the police and reported his wife missing. Defendant also disputes the instructions' adequacy, and, beyond that-in addition to urging this Court to reject the notion of a background exception to the hearsay rule-he further argues that the testimony recounting the victim's out-of-court statements was largely unreliable. After all, he made several statements making it appear he had no idea how his wife disappeared, where she was, and when or whether she would ever return. Her stated intentions, should defendant refuse to accede to those demands, were plain. He then drove her body to an airstrip in Caldwell, N.J., and dumped it into the Atlantic Ocean from a single-engine private plane. This station is part of Cox Media Group Television. In MacDonald v. Clinger, 84 A.D.2d 482, 487, 446 N.Y.S.2d 801, the court said: where a patient may be a danger to himself or others (see e.g.
