We hold that the reliability of this evidence, initially a question for the court to resolve, is amply supported by this record. People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 134 N.E.2d 475.) Robert Bierenbaum was convicted of second-degree murder in 2000 and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Katz-Bierenbaums family requested that the remains be reexamined in 1997 when DNA testing became available, according to The Charley Project. 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. Like his wife, he was 29 years old when she vanished. O'Malley in the interim, Det. Defendant responded to none of them. Dr. Karnofsky also remembered a phone call defendant received one morning at three o'clock, a few months after she moved in. 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. 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. Sgt. Anything could be helpful in locating Gail. However, he again omitted to mention that he had rented and flown an airplane for almost two hours that same afternoon, a consistent omission whenever he told others about the events of July 7. As for now, Robert was sent back to prison. Indeed, it has also been held that such evidence in like contexts is highly probative of the defendant's motive and [i]s either directly related to or inextricably interwoven (People v. Ely, [68 N.Y.2d 520] at 529 [510 N.Y.S.2d 532, 503 N.E.2d 88]) with the issue of his identity as the killer (People v. Linton, 166 A.D.2d 670, 671, 561 N.Y.S.2d 259, lv. 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. 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. 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. Finally, the court's cautionary instructions to the jury were more than adequate to assure a relevant and fair consideration of this evidence and avoid prejudicial impact. 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. ABC 20/20 is revealing new details in the case in its episode tonight. 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). Ive waited for that sound a long time. The jury got the case on Monday. Neither her body nor her remains has ever been found. This couple had a history of angry words and deeds, of threats, and of violence; they harbored a wide range of feelings ranging from ambivalence to profound hostility toward each other, and, beyond their generalized resentment, defendant had evident motives to kill the decedent. ed.] We agree with only one claim of error. If this had happened in 2021 Robert Bierenbaum would have been in handcuffs immediately, Bibb told the network. 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. 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. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638; Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 89, 91 S.Ct. I had to take the rug out to be cleaned.. I was like, Holy (expletive), are you kidding me? former prosecutor Daniel Bibb told ABC News. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J. We disagree with defendant and find them fair and legally satisfactory. Investigators took steps for a jury to witness exactly how they believe Bierenbaum dumped his wifes body during his 2000 murder trial, according to the New York Post. Moreover, the justice's immediate response-I suspect I'll allow it-is of no greater legal significance. 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. While defendant understandably argues that this ruling prejudiced him at trial, we hold that under these circumstances it did not unduly do so. His next parole hearing is slated for next month. 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. Gail Katz is pictured in a family photo. 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. 2023 Cox Media Group. 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. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. For the entire week immediately following the victim's disappearance, defendant failed to return Det. It was appropriately rejected by the jury. Jake Massey. That was the overwhelming opinion of those closest to her, including her gynecologist, her therapist of three years, and her sister, three confidantes in the best position to know. 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. The record is replete with evidence depicting events and statements which motivated the victim to end her marriage. At the time, the plastic surgeon claimed innocence, but that has all changed. O'Malley that the building doorman said he last saw her leave the building shortly after 11 o'clock on July 7. On one occasion a co-worker overheard defendant in a common work area arguing loudly with his wife over the telephone. In part, he frames his argument by citing reported domestic violence cases wherein the jury was allowed to learn that the victimized spouses endured more than one attack by the accused pre-dating the violent act charged in the indictment. Notwithstanding defendant's characterization of that exchange as wordplay, contending now it should be deemed a substantial legal objection, the attorney's words do not constitute an effective protest under CPL 470.05(2), because the specific language would not, nor did it, prompt the court to make an actual ruling. The former plastic surgeons stunning confession took place during a December parole hearing, the transcript of which was recently obtained by ABC News. He said Katz had stormed out of their apartment following an argument the morning before and not returned. At the time the deceased disappeared, defendant was a surgical resident at Maimonides Hospital and a licensed pilot. In the days, weeks, months and years following his wife's disappearance, defendant made several inconsistent, unfounded or otherwise suspect and incriminating statements. 14, 551 P.2d 334; Berry v. Moench, 8 Utah 2d 191, 331 P.2d 814; Simonsen v. Swenson, 104 Neb. When one applies the appropriate legal principles, these conclusions become most compelling for a rational, dispassionate and attentive fact finder. However, the trial justice specifically stated her ruling did not apply to preclude the letter's existence and nature. By 1985, the parties' three-year-old marriage can fittingly be described as an emotional battleground. 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. 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. 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. Almost a It was the first time he had admitted to the crime since his wife, Gail Katz, disappeared in 1985. The call came from the police who insisted that he immediately come in to view a woman they had found at the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal, someone they thought might be his missing wife. 14, 551 P.2d 334). 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. Accordingly, this claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 623 N.Y.S.2d 735, 647 N.E.2d 1243). 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. Please try again. Psychiatrist's Warning Letter and Other Hearsay. Second, if we were to reach the merits, we would find that the prosecutor's summation arguments on the subject, when viewed in the complete context of his closing statements, do not warrant reversal. He also once choked Gail into unconsciousness after finding her smoking on their balcony. dr bob bierenbaum parole 2020 CMI is a proven leader at applying industry knowledge and engineering expertise to solve problems that other fabricators cannot or will not take on. Those opinions, contrary to defendant's argument, did not endanger the jury's objectivity, as the record in no way suggests that they were delivered in anything other than a dispassionate and brief manner. Meanwhile, he remains imprisoned at the Otisville Correctional Facility, the records show. NR | 10.22.21 | 01:19:49 | CC more episodes 01:20:43 As for defendant's remaining reliability claims, they raise questions quite properly within the jury's province. Bierenbaum was found guilty of second-degree murder in October 2000. We recognize that the law most often views consciousness of guilt evidence as weak-but not always. 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. 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. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 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. 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. 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. One day in the fall of 1983, at about 3:00 P.M., the victim called her cousin, Hillard Wiese, an attorney, at his office. ABC News reports that Robert Bierenbaum, who is serving 20 years-to-life in prison for murdering his wife Gail Katz, confessed to the crime during a Dec. 2020 parole 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. Furthermore, there is virtually no conflicting testimony within the People's case to compare against the weight of the People's credible proof, proof which so firmly supports this conviction. Bierenbaum, a former plastic surgeon, was convicted of killing his first wife, Gail Katz, in 1985. Since there may be reasons other than guilt of the crime charged which would prompt a person to give a false statement, the probative weight of such statements depends upon the facts of the particular case. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Former NY surgeon admits killing wife, throwing body from airplane in 1985 (NCD). Because defendant did not have a list with him, Dalsass said he would call defendant's home for it that evening. To yet another, he described his missing wife as a tramp, off living with someone else. When a few months later he received an early morning telephone call from the police indicating they may have had his lost wife at the precinct, he was less than anxious to accede to their request that he immediately leave his bed to possibly identify his inexplicably missing wife. 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 Gail Katz Bierenbaum was murdered at age 29 in 1985, and the case went unsolved for years as her husband, Robert Bierenbaum, started a new life. On the facts here, it is reasonable to assign a moderate degree of probative force to the false statements [emphasis added]. In 1984, she was so unhappy that she consulted a divorce lawyer. ), rendered November 29, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life should be affirmed. Her stated intentions, should defendant refuse to accede to those demands, were plain. As a cameraman in a helicopter filmed the recreation, a New York City police officer shoved a duffel bag filled with 110 pounds of rice and sand from a Cessna 172 three times, unassisted, the newspaper said. The Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) strongly emphasizes the importance of inclusion and representation by recognizing the unique challenges that non-binary and transgender incarcerated people face Gov. He became eligible for parole last October, according to state prison records. 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. Of course, if one were to evaluate each item of evidence in isolation, a different conclusion might be reached for at least some sequestered items. But, as the law requires us to look at the body of proof as a whole, we are convinced it paints a clear picture of a defendant's guilt, and that the jury's verdict is both supported by legally sufficient evidence and entirely consistent with its weight. To begin with, any notion that the victim disappeared in some way other than her actual demise on July 7, 1985 is utterly dispelled by a combination of the legitimate inferences raised by all the proof and by defendant's concession that his wife died, and that she died that day. 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. According to the Times, she had talked Bierenbaum into seeking psychiatric help for his violent streak. In December 1999, prosecutors charged Bierenbaum based on the circumstantial evidence. NEW YORK Dr. Robert Bierenbaum maintained his innocence in 2000 as he was tried and convicted of killing his first wife 15 years before. 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. Arcturus: New COVID-19 variant spreading in the U.S with new symptom, Accused Florida serial killer accepts plea deal, will serve 4 consecutive life terms, Gov. This Court has reviewed these various instructions given during trial and at its end. denied 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. Getting ready to learn! However, the proof here evinces defendant's intent to focus his aggression on one person, namely, his wife-his victim. Contemporaneously with these expressions of despair and bewilderment, he promptly had sexual relations on his first date with a nurse in the very room he and his victim had rented for the 1985 summer in the Hamptons, less than a month after she vanished. One can reasonably infer that he knew she would not suddenly return and appear at his bedside. In addition, he had, the day before (7/13), told Det. The two circumstances, i.e., 1) that the police never recovered the victim's body and 2) that no one other than the victim and her killer personally witnessed the violent act which ended her life, do not bar a valid murder conviction under current law. Notwithstanding these and other direct, uncomplicated admonitions, defendant omitted telling Det. The detective specifically made it clear to defendant the importance of omitting nothing in describing and detailing for him the last three days his wife and he spent together: I opened up with anything that might be instrumental in locating Gail. The trial justice's carefully balanced decisions allowed the People to show only the existence and the general nature of the letter in order legitimately to probe defendant's motive. Family and friends reported, however, that Katz wanted to divorce her husband. 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. To reject any notion that the victim intended to use the letter a second time simply because she may have already used it once before would unreasonably ignore her various statements, her reasons for wanting a divorce, and her state of mind as that fateful weekend approached. denied 96 N.Y.2d 921, 732 N.Y.S.2d 637, 758 N.E.2d 663 [previous assault against victim admissible]; People v. Reynoso, 262 A.D.2d 102, 693 N.Y.S.2d 521, lv. He is now eligible for parole and faces a parole hearing in November 2021. An accomplished pilot, he took her body onto a four-passenger Cessna 172 Nighthawk and, as the plane flew over the Atlantic, tossed it out the aircraft door. Notwithstanding that defendant originally consented to having the psychiatrist speak to and warn the victim and his parents, he now claims that the ruling allowing testimony only about the existence and nature of the warning letter was error because it violated his statutory privilege under CPLR 4504(a) and it was otherwise unduly prejudicial. 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. I went flying. 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. His flight path took him over the ocean. 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. Bierenbaum has been eligible for parole since October 2020. 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 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. 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. In fact, defendant even misstated to Det. 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. Additionally, her key reason for precluding the professionals from giving oral testimony at trial was that one of their purposes for consulting with defendant's closest family members was to gain insights from his family members, insights which might enhance their treatment of defendant. at 293, 61 N.E. [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. They argue that when certain established facts are juxtaposed with other proven circumstances, defendant's multiple contradictions and omissions are patently incriminating. From there, he telephoned his apartment more than once. [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. We also reject defendant's claims in their entirety that the prosecutor's summation exacerbated the error which he says occurred by dint of the court's decision to admit evidence of the 1983 choking incident; and that the court's charge did not, nor could it, adequately safeguard defendant's right to a fair trial. Dalsass could not speak to defendant to obtain that vital information until the July 14 interview. Moreover, the testimony of the only defense witness, Joel Davis, suggesting that he saw the deceased on the afternoon of July 7, was extremely weak. Furthermore, the trial justice gave the People even less leeway than Farrow permits after a waiver, by ruling that only the existence and nature of the letter-not its factual content nor the physicians' testimony-were admissible. 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. Most of the victim's hearsay statements, in one way or another, bespoke this couple's marital strife and unhappiness, a perception defendant himself shared and repeatedly admitted. Katz, 29, of New York, was murdered in July 1985 by her husband, Dr. Robert Bierenbaum. The only thing more shocking may be how he tried to hide the body. He is now eligible for parole and faces a parole hearing in November. The Charley Project Although her body was never found, Katz-Bierenbaum has a grave at Mount Zion Cemetery in Maspeth, Queens, New York, according to Find a Grave. This entire case leaves no doubt whatever that the contents of the videotape depict a scenario that was anything but speculation. After he hung up and she asked him whether under the circumstances she should pack her things and vacate the apartment, he told her not to worry because he doubt[s] it is Gail. Although he had expressed some apparent frustration because the police were insisting he come to the terminal at that hour, he complied. This abundant array of damning circumstantial evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally killed this victim, that he did it on the date, at the time and for the reason the People offered; and that he disposed of her body as the People contend. 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. The trial testimony and physical exhibits revealed the following: In 1982 defendant and the victim married. 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. We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Furthermore, he invited a different woman to move into the marital apartment with him in September 1985. Defendant's lies, misstatements and omissions powerfully bespeak his consciousness of guilt. Defendant was pretty surprised and stunned and asked her what she knew. 4. He was the individual that las[t] saw her in the apartment. On the other hand, by concomitantly excluding the letter itself, suppressing its factual content and prohibiting the proffered testimony of defendant's three treating mental health professionals whom the People had intended to call as witnesses, these rulings protected the remaining, essential aspects of defendant's statutory privilege under CPLR 4504(a). 286 and its progeny. He told several people that, just before his wife left the apartment for the last time, they argued. I told him that any information is useful. 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. They both complained many times to many people that their marriage was loveless and their life together was stormy. In a December parole hearing, however, I wanted her to stop yelling at me and I attacked her, Bierenbaum said, according to a hearing transcript obtained by the network. Indeed, defendant himself told his father in 1983 that their strife had reached the point of some physical contact, and there is credible testimony that in 1985 defendant was so filled with hostility that he was tempted toward violence against his wife. Robert Bierenbaum, who is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison, revealed the details of the 1985 murder during a December 2020 parole hearing whose During the trial, the jury saw a video of an NYPD pilot loading two 50-pound bags of sand and a 10-pound bag of rice into a black duffel bag, meant to serve as a simulation for the 110-body of Katz Bierenbaum. 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. Inmate Name BIERENBAUM, ROBERT Sex MALE Date of Birth 07/22/1955 Race / Ethnicity WHITE Custody Status IN CUSTODY Housing / Releasing Facility ATTICA Date Received (Original) 12/22/2000 Date Received (Current) 12/22/2000 Admission Type NEW COMMITMENT County of Commitment NEW YORK Crimes of Conviction Crime: There was no foregone conclusion to this case, by any stretch of the imagination.. 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. Dalsass that he and his wife had no argument on July 7, but he told Det. 224, 177 N.W. A trial court must not merely count the number of past incidents, but it must engage in a qualitative assessment of the words and deeds which create the history of the relationship between defendant and alleged victim.