People v Raphael Golb

5/26/2018 People v Raphael Golb

1/23

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 72The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.Raphael Gol b, Appel l ant .

Ronal d L. Kuby, f or appel l ant .Vi ncent Ri vel l ese, f or r espondent .Nat i onal Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def ense Lawyer s et

al . , ami ci cur i ae.

ABDUS- SALAAM, J . :

Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr of essor Nor man Gol b i s a

schol ar of t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s. Thi s case i nvol ves an i nt er net

campai gn by Gol b' s son, Raphael Gol b, t o at t ack t he i nt egr i t y and

harm t he r eput at i on of other Dead Sea Scr ol l s academi cs and

schol ar s, whi l e pr omot i ng t he vi ews of hi s f at her .

- 1-


2/23

- 2 - No. 72

To accompl i sh hi s goal of di scr edi t i ng and harmi ng

t hese i ndi vi dual s, def endant , usi ng pseudonyms and i mper sonat i ng

r eal academi cs and schol ars, sent emai l s t o museum

admi ni st r at ors, academi cs and r epor t ers. He publ i shed anonymous

bl ogs. He concoct ed an el abor at e scheme i n whi ch he used a

pseudonym t o engage one pr of essor i n an emai l exchange, and t hen

i mper sonat ed a di f f er ent schol ar t o cri t i ci ze t hat pr of essor ' s

emai l s. Def endant i mpersonat ed a New Yor k Uni ver si t y ( NYU)

prof essor and sent emai l s t o NYU st udent s and NYU deans

i ndi cat i ng t hat t he pr of essor had pl agi ar i zed t he wor k of

Pr of essor Gol b.

A New Yor k Count y grand j ury char ged def endant wi t h 51

count s of i dent i t y t hef t , cri mi nal i mper sonat i on, f or ger y,

aggravat ed har assment and unauthor i zed use of a comput er . He

pr oceeded to a j ur y t r i al , wher e 31 count s wer e submi t t ed f or t he

j ury' s consi derat i on. The j ur y convi ct ed on 30 count s: t wo count s

of i dent i t y t hef t i n t he second degr ee; 14 count s of cr i mi nal

i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee; 10 count s of f or ger y i n t he

t hi r d degr ee; t hr ee count s of aggr avated harassment i n t he second

degr ee; and one count of unaut hor i zed use of a comput er .

Def endant was sent enced t o si x mont hs i n j ai l and f i ve years of

pr obat i on on t he i dent i t y thef t count s and t o concur r ent l esser

t er ms on t he r emai ni ng count s. The Appel l at e Di vi si on modi f i ed

t he Supr eme Cour t j udgment t o t he ext ent of vacat i ng t he i dent i t y

- 2-


3/23

- 3 - No. 72

t hef t convi ct i on i n t he f i r st count of t he i ndi ct ment and

di smi ssi ng t hat count , and ot her wi se af f i r mi ng t he j udgment ( 102

AD3d 601 [ 1st Dept 2013] ) . A J udge of t hi s Cour t gr ant ed

def endant l eave t o appeal ( 20 NY3d 1099 [ 2013] ) . For t he r easons

t hat f ol l ow, we af f i r m t he convi ct i ons f or ni ne count s of

cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee and al l of t he

convi ct i ons f or f or ger y. We vacat e t he convi ct i on f or i dent i t y

t hef t i n t he second degr ee; f i ve of t he convi ct i ons f or cr i mi nal

i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee; al l of t he convi ct i ons f or

aggr avat ed harassment i n t he second degr ee, and t he convi ct i on

f or unaut hor i zed use of a comput er .

I .

The Dead Sea Scr ol l s and Def endant ' s I nt er net Campai gn

As was expl ai ned at t he t r i al , t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s are

a col l ect i on of anci ent r el i gi ous wr i t i ngs dat i ng f r om t he second

and t hi r d cent ur y B. C. E. t o t he f i r st cent ur y C. E. 1 They wer e

di scover ed i n 1948 i n caves near Qumr an, i n t he West Bank.

Nor man Gol b, def endant ' s f at her , i s a pr of essor at t he Uni ver si t y

of Chi cago, and a schol ar on t he subj ect of t he Scr ol l s. Ther e

i s di sagr eement among schol ar s and exper t s about who wr ot e t he

Scr ol l s. One vi ew, known as t he Qumr an- Sect ar i an t heory, or

Sect ar i an t heor y, i s t hat t he Scrol l s wer e wr i t i ngs of a J ewi sh

1B. C. E. ( Bef or e t he Common Er a) and C. E. ( t he Common Era)ar e t he equi val ent of B. C. and A. D. , r espect i vel y.

- 3-


4/23

- 4 - No. 72

sect , l i vi ng i n or near Qumr an.

Nor man Gol b and ot her s di sagr ee wi t h t he Qumr an-

Sect ar i an t heor y. They bel i eve t hat t he Scr ol l s wer e wr i t i ngs of

var i ous gr oups and t hat t he wr i t i ngs wer e r escued f r om l i br ar i es

i n J er usal em and br ought t o t he caves f or saf ekeepi ng at t he t i me

of t he si ege and sacki ng of t he ci t y by Roman t r oops i n 70

C. E. ( t he J er usal em l i br ar i es t heor y) . Pr of essor Gol b chal l enges

t he Qumr an- Sect ar i an t heory as unsuppor t ed by any act ual

evi dence. I n hi s 1995 book, Who Wr ot e t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s?,

Pr of essor Gol b di scusses not onl y the hi st or y of Scrol l r esear ch,

but cr i t i ci zes what he bel i eves t o be unet hi cal r esear ch

pr act i ces r egar di ng t he Scrol l s.

Begi nni ng i n Sept ember 2006, t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s

became the subj ect of a ser i es of museum exhi bi t s. Def endant

engaged i n an i nt er net campai gn t o cr i t i ci ze t hose i nvol ved i n

t he exhi bi t s because, i n def endant ' s opi ni on, t he exhi bi t s di d

not pr esent hi s f at her ' s t heor i es about t he or i gi n of t he

Scr ol l s. One of def endant ' s t ar get s was Rober t Car gi l l , who at

t he t i me was a gr aduat e st udent at t he Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a

i n Los Angel es ( UCLA) worki ng t oward hi s Ph. D i n near east er n

l anguages and cul t ur e. Car gi l l had publ i shed on t he t opi c of t he

Scrol l s. I n 2007, t he Scrol l s wer e put on exhi bi t at t he San

Di ego Nat ur al Hi st or y Museum. For use at t hat exhi bi t , Car gi l l

cr eated a di gi t al movi e cal l ed "Anci ent Qumr an, " whi ch was a

- 4-


5/23

- 5 - No. 72

si l ent t our of t he si t e wher e t he Scr ol l s wer e di scover ed, and he

wr ot e a scr i pt t o be r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h t he movi e. The

scr i pt di d not descr i be Pr of essor Gol b' s vi ew of t he Scrol l s'

or i gi ns .

Usi ng pseudonyms, def endant sent emai l s t o UCLA medi a

addr esses i ncl udi ng news@medi a. ucl a. edu, a UCLA prof essor ,

Car gi l l ' s doct or al advi sor , many ot her "ucl a. edu" addr esses, and

an ent ert ai nment company wi t h whi ch Cargi l l had si gned a

cont r act, cr i t i ci zi ng Car gi l l and quest i oni ng hi s schol ar shi p.

Car gi l l t est i f i ed t hat ever yone i n hi s depar t ment , peopl e i n t he

pr ess r oom, t he Pr ovost of UCLA, and hi s dean asked hi m "what t he

hel l i s goi ng on, what i s t hi s al l about ?" On a number of

occasi ons, def endant used an anonymous bl og t o post hi s

gr i evances about t he San Di ego exhi bi t and t he Cargi l l movi e.

When t he Dead Sea Scr ol l s exhi bi t moved t o Ral ei gh,

Nor t h Car ol i na, def endant t ar get ed St ephen Gor anson, a l i br ar y

cl er k at Duke Uni ver si t y who had publ i shed ar t i cl es on t he

Scr ol l s. Gor anson di sagr eed wi t h Pr of essor Gol b' s t heor i es and

cri t i ci zed t hem i n publ i c i nt er net f or ums. I n J ul y 2008, wr i t i ng

as "Pet er Kauf man, Ph. D. , " def endant separ at el y emai l ed t he

Pr ovost and t he Pr esi dent of Duke Uni ver si t y, as wel l as

Gor anson' s super vi sor at t he l i br ar y, compl ai ni ng about

Gor anson' s pur por t ed i nt er net at t acks on Pr of essor Gol b and

suggest i ng t hat t hey consi der whet her t hi s conduct was

- 5-


6/23

- 6 - No. 72

appr opr i at e f or a Duke empl oyee. The Provost r esponded t hat a

super vi sor was speaki ng t o Goranson and advi si ng hi m of hi s

obl i gat i ons. Def endant al so cr eat ed an emai l account under t he

name of " st eve. gor anson@gmai l . com. "

Def endant al so undert ook an el aborat e scheme i nvol vi ng

t he i mper sonat i on of Dead Sea Scr ol l s schol ar and r et i r ed Har var d

Pr of essor Frank Cr oss. The f i r st l ayer of t he scheme was t o

assume t he pseudonym of " J erome Cooper " t o engage i n an emai l

exchange wi t h Uni ver si t y of Nor t h Car ol i na Pr of essor Bar t Ehr man

( who had been sl at ed t o l ect ur e at t he Ral ei gh exhi bi t ) about t he

or i gi n of t he Scr ol l s. Def endant t hen anonymousl y publ i shed a

bl og denounci ng t he sel ect i on of Ehr man as l ect ur er and

publ i shi ng t he emai l s f r om Pr of essor Ehr man t o "J er ome Cooper , "

whi ch def endant sai d Cooper had been "good enough t o f orward t o

me. " Def endant ' s next st ep was t o cr eat e t he emai l addr ess

" f r ank. cr oss2@gmai l . com" and send f our separate but i dent i cal

messages to f our Uni ver si t y of Nor t h Car ol i na schol ar s. I n t hose

emai l s f r om t he "Frank Cr oss" emai l addr ess, def endant at t ached

l i nks t o hi s anonymous bl og ent r i es cont ai ni ng Ehr man' s emai l s,

and st at ed t hat "Bar t " had "put hi s f oot i n hi s mout h agai n. " He

si gned t hose emai l s "Best , Fr ank Cr oss. "

The Scr ol l s wer e put on exhi bi t at t he J ewi sh Museum i n

New Yor k Ci t y i n the Fal l of 2008, and NYU Prof essor Lawr ence

Schi f f man was schedul ed as a l ect ur er . Def endant used t he

- 6-


7/23

- 7 - No. 72

pseudonym "Pet er Kauf man" t o publ i sh an art i cl e about Schi f f man

on t he soci al news websi t e NowPubl i c ent i t l ed "Pl agi ar i sm and t he

Dead Sea Scr ol l s: Di d NYU depart ment chai r man pi l f er f r om Chi cago

hi st or i an' s wor k?" Def endant as "Kauf man" wr ot e of a " l i t t l e-

known case of appar ent academi c quacker y. " He compl ai ned of

Schi f f man' s f ai l ur e t o credi t Pr of essor Gol b f or i deas expr essed

i n Schi f f man' s ar t i cl es about t he Scrol l s, and Schi f f man' s

r epeat ed pl agi ar i sms of Gol b' s wor k.

Usi ng NYU comput ers, def endant sent emai l s f r om anot her

account he cr eat ed - " l ar r y. schi f f man@gmai l . com" - t o f our of

Schi f f man' s st udent s and mul t i pl e NYU addr esses of Schi f f man' s

col l eagues t hat i ncl uded a l i nk t o t he ar t i cl e. The emai l s

st ated, among other t hi ngs, t hat "someone i s i nt ent on exposi ng a

mi nor f ai l i ng of mi ne that dat es back al most f i f t een year s ago"

and t hat " t hi s i s my car eer at st ake. " He si gned t hose emai l s

"Lawr ence Schi f f man. " Addi t i onal l y, def endant sent i dent i cal

emai l s f r om t he Schi f f man emai l addr ess t o t he Provost of NYU and

t he Dean of NYU Gr aduat e School of Ar t s and Sci ence. Def endant ,

as Schi f f man, asked what act i on he coul d t ake "t o count er charges

of pl agi ar i sm t hat have been rai sed agai nst me" and st at ed:

"Apparent l y, someone i s i nt ent on exposi ng a

f ai l i ng of mi ne t hat dat es back al mostf i f t een year s ago. I t i s t r ue t hat I shoul dhave ci t ed Dr . Gol b' s ar t i cl es when usi ng hi sar gument s, and i t i s t r ue t hat Imi sr epr esent ed hi s i deas. But t hi s i s si mpl yt he pol i t i cs of Dead Sea Scrol l s st udi es. I fI had gi ven cr edi t t o thi s man I woul d have

- 7-


8/23

- 8 - No. 72

been banned f r om conf erences ar ound t hewor l d. ".

He si gned t hose emai l s " Lawr ence Schi f f man, pr of essor . "

NYU' s Seni or Vi ce Pr ovost r esponded t o t hi s emai l ,

st at i ng t hat he had assi gned t he mat t er t o a dean f or f ur t her

i nvest i gat i on. Def endant , as " Schi f f man" f or war ded t hat emai l f r om

t he Vi ce Pr ovost ( i ncl udi ng def endant ' s emai l t o t he Pr ovost ) t o

f i ve NYU school newspaper emai l addr esses, aski ng t hat t hey not

ment i on t hi s mat t er and st at i ng t hat hi s "car eer i s at st ake. " He

si gned those emai l s " Lawr ence Schi f f man. "

I n t he Fal l of 2008, t he Scrol l s exhi bi t was schedul ed

t o move t o t he Royal Ont ar i o Museum ( ROM) i n Tor ont o. Dr . J onat han

Sei del , a r abbi i n Or egon and a pr of essor of J udai c st udi es at t he

Uni ver si t y of Or egon, had st udi ed wi t h Pr of essor Schi f f man at NYU.

Def endant cr eat ed t he emai l addr ess "sei del . j onat han@gmai l . com" and

sent an emai l t o the Boar d of Trust ees at t he ROM, bl i nd copyi ng

numerous ot her i ndi vi dual s at t he museum. That emai l , among ot her

t hi ngs, i ncl uded l i nks t o ar t i cl es concer ni ng t he San Di ego

exhi bi t i on of t he Scrol l s and cri t i ci sm by Pr of essor Gol b of t he

exhi bi t , whi ch was curat ed by Dr . Ri sa Levi t t Kohn, t he same

i ndi vi dual who was cur at i ng t he exhi bi t at t he ROM. The emai l

st at ed t hat " [ t ] he San Di ego exhi bi t or s set out t o conf use t he

publ i c" and descr i bed a quoted st atement f r om Dr . Kohn def endi ng

t he exhi bi t whi ch she had cur at ed as " shocki ngl y obscur ant i st . . .

f or someone i nvol ved i n curat i ng a museum exhi bi t at t he ROM. " He

- 8-


9/23

- 9 - No. 72

si gned those emai l s " Wi t h best r egar ds, J onat han Sei del . "

Usi ng t he Sei del emai l addr ess, def endant al so sent an

emai l t o Dr . Kohn. I t cont ai ned a l i nk t o def endant ' s ( anonymous)

bl og about Dr . Kohn and Mi chael Hager , t he di r ect or of t he San

Di ego museum where t he Scr ol l s had been exhi bi t ed. The bl og

poi nted out t hat Hager had been def endi ng Dr . Kohn and t he San

Di ego exhi bi t . I t cr i t i ci zed Hager and Kohn, and poi nt ed out t hat

Pr of essor Gol b had subj ect ed t he San Di ego exhi bi t t o a "sear i ng

cr i t i que. " The emai l sought Dr . Kohn' s opi ni on on the two t heor i es

about t he Scr ol l s and asked i f she was pl anni ng t o answer Prof essor

Gol b' s cr i t i que. I t was si gned "Wi t h best wi shes, J onat han Sei del . "

The same day t hat he sent t he emai l t o Dr . Kohn,

def endant sent anot her emai l f r om "Sei del " t o 79 Dead Sea Scr ol l s

schol ar s, aski ng f or hel p i n pr epar i ng a r esponse t o mi si nf or mat i on

whi ch was bei ng spr ead ar ound t he i nt er net . He i ncl uded a l i nk t o

hi s anonymous bl og, and a l i nk and a quot at i on f r om an ar t i cl e i n

t he Fr ench newspaper Le Monde, whi ch def endant ( as Sei del ) st at ed

was "out r ageous. " The quot e f r om Le Monde was t hat " t he connect i on

bet ween t he Essenes, who wer e t hought t o have wr i t t en t he scr ol l s,

and Qumr an has been reduced t o not hi ng, j ust as t he maj or Amer i can

hi st or i an and pal eogr apher N. Gol b had al r eady wr i t t en. " The emai l

st at ed t hat " t hese l i es about t he Chi cago f i l t h must be answer ed as

qui ckl y as possi bl e, so pl ease l et me know i f you' r e wi l l i ng t o

hel p out . . . " I n cont r ast t o hi s emai l t o Dr . Kohn, whi ch

- 9-


10/23

- 10 - No. 72

pr omot ed t he Gol b t heor y, t hi s emai l appear s t o be cal l i ng

Pr of essor Gol b "Chi cago f i l t h. " I t was si gned "Best , J onat han S. "

Def endant al so used t he Sei del emai l addr ess t o cont act

appr oxi mat el y 85 i ndi vi dual s, many of whom had uni ver si t y emai l

addr esses, ur gi ng t hem t o "condemn t he cont i nui ng f i l t h f r om

Chi cago, j ust as Dr . St ephen Goranson of Duke Uni ver si t y has had

t he cour age to do. " That t oo was s i gned "Best , J onat han S. "

I I .

Cr i mi nal I mpersonat i on i n t he Second Degr ee

Def endant was convi ct ed of 14 count s of cr i mi nal

i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee. A per son i s gui l t y of t hi s

cr i me when he or she "i mper sonates anot her and does an act i n such

assumed char act er wi t h i nt ent t o obt ai n a benef i t or t o i nj ur e or

def r aud anot her " ( Penal Law 190. 25) . The cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on

count s r el at ed t o def endant ' s act i ons agai nst Schi f f man, Gor anson,

Sei del and Cr oss. Al t hough r equest ed t o do so by def endant , t he

t r i al cour t di d not l i mi t t he st at ut or y t er ms "benef i t " or " i nj ur e"

i n i t s char ge t o t he j ur y. The Appel l at e Di vi si on hel d t hat "[ t ] he

cour t was under no obl i gat i on t o l i mi t t he def i ni t i ons of "i nj ur e"

or "def r aud" - t er ms used i n t he f or ger y and cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on

st atut es - t o t angi bl e harms such as f i nanci al harm"( 102 AD3d at

602, ci t i ng Peopl e v Kase, 75 AD2d 532, 537- 538 [1st Dept 1980] ,

af f d 53 NY2d 989 [ 1981] ) . Def endant mai nt ai ns t hat t he t r i al

cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o pr oper l y l i mi t and def i ne t he t er ms "i nj ur e" and

- 10-


11/23

- 11 - No. 72

"benef i t " const i t ut ed r ever si bl e er r or because the j ur y coul d have

i nt er pr et ed t he st at ut e as capt ur i ng any benef i t or har m. Thus,

ar gues def endant , when l i t er al l y anything can be a l egal l y

cogni zabl e benef i t or har m, one can be f ound gui l t y of vi ol at i ng

t hi s l aw i f one, f or exampl e, si mpl y causes hur t f eel i ngs, mocks or

cri t i ci zes. Si mi l ar l y, says def endant , a benef i t coul d be any gai n

or advant age, no mat t er how sl i ght .

Cases appl yi ng Penal Law 190. 25 have t r adi t i onal l y

i nvol ved monet ary f r aud or i nt er f er ence wi t h government oper at i ons

( see e. g. Peopl e v Sanchez, 84 NY2d 440 [ 1994] [ i mpersonat i on of an

FBI agent ] ; Peopl e v Hooks, 71 AD3d 1184 [4t h Dept 2010] [ af t er

damagi ng vi ct i m' s vehi cl e, def endant cal l ed pol i ce st at i on,

i dent i f yi ng her sel f as vi ct i m, i nf or mi ng t hem t hat she di d not want

t o pr ess char ges] ; Peopl e v Nawr ocki , 163 AD2d 887 [ 4t h Dept [ 1990]

[ def endant used hi s br other ' s name, soci al secur i t y number and

empl oyment st at us t o appl y f or and r ecei ve a l oan f r om a f i nance

company] ; Peopl e v Chi ves, 189 Mi sc2d 653 [ 2001] [ convi ct i on f or

f al sel y i dent i f yi ng onesel f t o pol i ce and possessi on of an al t er ed

passpor t ] ; Peopl e v Bent l ey, 78 Mi sc2d 578 [1974] [ woman si gned a

f al se name t o a super mar ket cash r egi st er r ecei pt ] ; Peopl e v

Di amond, 77 Mi sc2d 412 [ 1974] [ convi ct i on f or seeki ng to avoi d an

ar r est by i mper sonat i ng a t r ansi t aut hor i t y conduct or ] ) . The

Appel l ate Di vi si on ci t ed Peopl e v Kase ( 76 AD2d 532 [ 1st Dept

1980] , af f d 53 NY2d 989 [ 1981] ) i n suppor t of i t s hol di ng t hat

- 11-


12/23

- 12 - No. 72

" i nj ur y" and "def r aud" i s not l i mi t ed t o t angi bl e har ms such as

f i nanci al har ms i nvol ved t he f i l i ng of a f al se i nst r ument . Ther e,

Kase ar gued t hat Penal Law 190. 25 di d not appl y where t he Peopl e

had not demonst r at ed t hat t here had been a pecuni ary l oss t o the

St at e, and t he cour t di sagr eed, f i ndi ng t hat i t i s suf f i ci ent i f

t he f r aud i mpact s t he St at e' s power t o f ul f i l l i t s gover nment al

r esponsi bi l i t i es ( i d. at 532- 533)

Her e, def endant di d not cause any pecuni ary l oss or

i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment al oper at i ons. Whi l e we agr ee wi t h

def endant t hat t he st at ut or y t er ms " i nj ur e" and "benef i t " cannot be

const r ued t o appl y t o any i nj ur y or benef i t , no mat t er how sl i ght ,

we concl ude t hat i nj ur y t o r eput at i on i s wi t hi n t he "i nj ur y"

cont empl at ed by Penal Law 190. 25. Many peopl e, part i cul ar l y wi t h

a car eer i n academi a, as r el evant t o t hi s case, val ue t hei r

r eput at i ons at l east as much as t hei r pr oper t y, 2 and we bel i eve t he

Legi sl at ur e i nt ended that t he scope of t he st at ut e be br oad enough

t o capt ur e act s i nt ended t o cause i nj ur y t o r eput at i on.

Accor di ngl y, a per son may be f ound gui l t y of cr i mi nal

i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee i f he or she i mper sonates

anot her wi t h t he i nt ent t o cause a tangi bl e, pecuni ar y i nj ur y t o

2 "Good name i n man and woman, dear my l or d,I s t he i mmedi at e j ewel of t hei r soul s.Who st eal s my pur se st eal s t r ash. ' Ti s somet hi ng, not hi ng:' Twas mi ne, ' t i s hi s, and has been sl ave t o thousands.But he t hat f i l ches f r om me my good nameRobs me of t hat whi ch not enr i ches hi mAnd makes me poor i ndeed. "

( Shakespear e, Ot hel l o, Act I I I , Scene 3. )

- 12-


13/23

- 13 - No. 72

anot her , or t he i nt ent t o i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment al oper at i ons

( see e. g. Peopl e v Hooks, 71 AD3d 1184 [ 3r d Dept 2010] ; Peopl e v

Nawr ocki , 163 AD2d 887 [ 4t h Dept [ 1990] ) . I n addi t i on, a per son

who i mpersonat es someone wi t h t he i nt ent t o harm t he r eput at i on of

another may be f ound gui l t y of t hi s cr i me. Her e, t her e was

suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat def endant ' s

emai l s i mpersonat i ng Schi f f man, Sei del and Cr oss were more t han a

pr ank i nt ended t o cause t emporary embarr assment or di scomf i t ur e,

and t hat he act ed wi t h i nt ent t o do real har m.

Whi l e we af f i r m most of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on

convi ct i ons, we hol d t hat t he mer e cr eat i on of emai l account s i n

t he names of Schi f f man, Sei del , Gor anson and Cr oss ( i n cont r ast t o

t he use of t hose account s t o send emai l s) does not const i t ut e

cr i mi nal conduct under Penal Law 190. 25. The mere cr eat i on of

emai l account s t hat ar e not used does no subst ant i al har m t o

anyone. Addi t i onal l y, t he emai l sent f r om t he Sei del emai l

addr ess t o Dr . Kohn, aski ng her opi ni on on t he di f f er i ng t heor i es

about t he Scr ol l s and whether she was pl anni ng t o answer Prof essor

Gol b' s cr i t i que, i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi cti on f or

cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on i n t he second degr ee. Unl i ke t he ot her

emai l s, t hi s emai l sent i n another per son' s name does not pr ove

t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o cause i nj ur y, ei t her t o r eput at i on or

ot her wi se. Thus, we vacat e t he convi ct i ons on t hose count s.

I I I .

Aggr avat ed Har assment i n t he Second Degr ee,

Penal Law 240. 30( 1) ( a) pr ovi des t hat " [ a] per son i s

- 13-


14/23

- 14 - No. 72

gui l t y of aggr avat ed harassment i n t he second degr ee when, wi t h

i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, t hr eat en or al ar m anot her per son, he or

she . . . communi cates wi t h a per son, anonymousl y or other wi se, by

t el ephone, by tel egr aph, or by mai l , or by t r ansmi t t i ng or

del i ver i ng any ot her f or m of wr i t t en communi cat i on, i n a manner

l i kel y t o cause annoyance or al arm. " We agr ee wi t h def endant t hat

t hi s st at ut e i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague and over br oad, and t hat

hi s convi ct i on of t hr ee count s of aggr avat ed har assment r el at ed t o

hi s conduct t oward Schi f f man, Goranson and Cargi l l must be

vacat ed.

I n Peopl e v Di et ze ( 75 NY2d 47 [ 1989] ) , t hi s Cour t

st r uck down a si mi l ar harassment st atut e, f ormer Penal Law

240. 25, whi ch pr ohi bi t ed t he use of abusi ve or obscene l anguage

wi t h t he i nt ent t o har ass, annoy or al ar m anot her per son. We

det er mi ned t hat t he st at ut e was unconst i t ut i onal under bot h t he

St at e and Feder al Const i t ut i ons, not i ng t hat "any pr oscr i pt i on of

pur e speech must be sharpl y l i mi t ed t o words whi ch, by t hei r

ut t er ance al one, i nf l i ct i nj ur y or t end nat ur al l y t o evoke

i mmedi at e vi ol ence" ( i d. at 52) .

The r easoni ng appl i ed i n Di et ze appl i es equal l y t o our

anal ysi s of Penal Law 240. 30( 1) ( a) . The st at ut e cr i mi nal i zes,

i n br oad st r okes, any communi cat i on t hat has t he i nt ent t o annoy.

Li ke t he har assment st at ut e at i ssue i n Di et ze, "no f ai r r eadi ng"

of t hi s st at ut e' s "unqual i f i ed t er ms suppor t s or even suggest s t he

const i t ut i onal l y necessar y l i mi t at i ons on i t s scope" ( i d. at 52;

see al so Peopl e v Dupont , 107 AD2d 247, 253 [ 1st Dept 1985]

- 14-


15/23

- 15 - No. 72

[ obser vi ng t hat t he st at ut e' s vagueness i s appar ent because " [ i ] t

i s not cl ear what i s meant by communi cat i on ' i n a manner l i kel y to

cause annoyance or al ar m' t o anot her per son"] ) . And, as i n

Di et ze, "we decl i ne t o i ncor por at e such l i mi t at i ons i nt o t he

st at ut e by j udi ci al const r uct i on" because t hat woul d be

" t ant amount t o whol esal e r evi si on of t he Legi sl at ur e' s enact ment ,

r at her t han pr udent j udi ci al const r uct i on" ( i d. at 53) .

Three f eder al j udges have al r eady f ound t hi s st at ut e

unconst i t ut i onal ( see Vi ves v the Ci t y of New Yor k, 305 F Supp 2d

289, 299 [ SD NY 2003, Schei ndl i n, J . ] , r evd on ot her gr ounds 405

F3d 115 [ 2d Ci r 2004] [ "wher e speech i s r egul ated or proscr i bed

based on i t s cont ent , t he scope of t he ef f ect ed speech must be

cl ear l y def i ned"] ; see al so Vi ves 405 F3d 115, 123- 124 [ 2d Ci r

2004, Car damone, J . , di ssent i ng i n par t , concur r i ng i n par t ]

[ Penal Law 240. 30( 1) unconst i t ut i onal on i t s f ace and as

appl i ed] ; Schl ager v Phi l l i ps, 985 F Supp 419, 421 [ SD NY 1987,

Br i eant , J . ] , r evd on ot her gr ounds, 166 F3d 439 [ 2d Ci r 1999]

[ st at ut e i s " ut t er l y repugnant t o t he Fi r st Amendment of t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and al so unconst i t ut i onal f or

vagueness" ] ) .

Accordi ngl y, we concl ude t hat Penal Law 240. 30( 1) i s

unconst i t ut i onal under bot h t he St at e and Feder al Const i t ut i ons,

and we vacate def endant s' convi ct i ons on t hese count s.

I V.

The Convi ct i ons f or For gery i n t he Thi r d Degree, I dent i t y Thef t i nt he Second Degree and Unaut hor i zed Use of a Comput er

- 15-


16/23

- 16 - No. 72

"A per son i s gui l t y of f or ger y i n t he t hi r d degr ee when,

wi t h i nt ent t o def r aud, decei ve or i nj ur e anot her , he f al sel y

makes, compl et es or al t er s a wr i t t en i nst r ument " ( Penal Law

170. 05 ) . Ther e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show t hat def endant

decei ved peopl e by sendi ng emai l s f r om account s i n t he names of

Schi f f man, Sei del and Cr oss, and accor di ngl y we af f i r m hi s

convi ct i ons on t hose count s.

However , we vacat e the convi ct i ons on the remai ni ng

count s of unaut hor i zed use of a comput er and i dent i t y t hef t i n t he

second degr ee. Under Penal Law 156. 05, " [ a] per son i s gui l t y of

unaut hor i zed use of a comput er when he or she knowi ngl y uses,

causes t o be used, or accesses a comput er , comput er ser vi ce, or

comput er net wor k wi t hout aut hor i zat i on. " The t er m "wi t hout

aut hor i zat i on" i s def i ned as " t o access a comput er . . . wi t hout

t he per mi ssi on of t he owner . . . or af t er act ual not i ce t o such

per son t hat such use or access was wi t hout per mi ssi on . . . "

( Penal Law 156. 00 [ 8] ) .

Def endant assert s t hat he had per mi ss i on t o access t he

NYU comput ers as an al umnus who j oi ned t he "Fr i ends of Bobst

Li br ary Progr am. " The Peopl e argue t hat usi ng t he comput er t o

commi t a cr i me cannot be an aut hor i zed use. However , t he

def i ni t i ons and wor di ng of t he st at ut e and t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y

i ndi cat e t hat t he st at ut e i s i nt ended t o r each a per son who

accesses a comput er syst em wi t hout per mi ssi on ( i . e. , a hacker ) and

t he l anguage does not appear t o encompass def endant ' s conduct

her e. "[ I ] f t wo const r uct i ons of a cri mi nal st at ut e ar epl ausi bl e,- 16-


17/23

- 17 - No. 72

t he one more f avorabl e to def endant shoul d be adopt ed i n

accor dance wi t h t he r ul e of l eni t y"( Peopl e v Gr een, 68 NY2d 151,

153 [ 1986] [ i nt er nal ci t at i on and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed] ) .

Thus, t he Peopl e di d not sust ai n t hei r bur den of proof t hat

def endant was gui l t y of unaut hor i zed use of t he NYU comput ers, and

we ther ef ore vacat e def endant ' s convi ct i on under Penal Law

156. 05.

Last l y, as per t i nent her e, a per son commi t s i dent i t y

t hef t i n t he second degr ee "when he or she knowi ngl y and wi t h

i nt ent t o def r aud assumes t he i dent i t y of anot her per son by

pr esent i ng hi msel f or her sel f as t hat ot her per son, or by act i ng

as t hat ot her per son or by usi ng per sonal i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on

of t hat ot her person, and t hereby" "commi t s or at t empt s t o commi t

a f el ony" ( Penal Law 190. 79 ( 3) ) . The at t empt ed f el ony at i ssue

her e i s f i r st - degr ee f al si f yi ng of t he busi ness r ecor ds of NYU.

That cr i me i s commi t t ed when a person "commi t s t he cr i me of

f al si f yi ng busi ness r ecor ds i n t he second degr ee, and when hi s

i nt ent t o def r aud i ncl uded an i nt ent t o commi t anot her cr i me or t o

ai d or conceal t he commi ssi on t her eof " ( Penal Law 175. 00 [ 2] ,

175. 10) . Accor di ng t o t he Peopl e, def endant sought t o f al si f y NYU

busi ness r ecor ds by manuf act ur i ng a subt l e admi ssi on of pl agi ar i sm

pur por t edl y f r om Schi f f man, wi t h t he i nt ent t hat NYU woul d open an

i nvest i gat i on of Schi f f man. Al t hough def endant sent damni ng

emai l s i n Schi f f man' s name t o NYU addr esses, t hat does not

const i t ut e t he creat i on or f al si f i cat i on of an NYU busi ness r ecor d

t hat i s " kept or mai nt ai ned by an ent er pr i se f or t he pur pose of

- 17-


18/23

- 18 - No. 72

evi denci ng or r ef l ect i ng i t s condi t i on or act i vi t y" and t he Peopl e

have not poi nt ed t o any pr oof t hat def endant f al si f i ed any such

r ecor ds. Because t her e i s i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t hi s

convi ct i on, i t must be vacat ed.

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d

be modi f i ed by vacat i ng t he convi ct i ons f or Count s 2, 3, 5, 23,

29, 40, 42, 44, 48, and 51, di smi ssi ng t hose count s of t he

i ndi ct ment , and remi t t i ng t o Supr eme Cour t f or r esent enci ng, and,

as so modi f i ed, af f i r med.

- 18-


19/23

Peopl e v Raphael Gol b

No. 72

LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge ( concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t ) :

I t woul d be di f f i cul t t o f i nd t he conduct by def endant

det ai l ed i n t he maj or i t y opi ni on admi r abl e. But our ver y

di f f er ent t ask i s t o deci de whet her t hat conduct was pr oper l y

t r eat ed as cr i mi nal . Whi l e I see no const i t ut i onal i mpedi ment t o

pr osecut i ng conduct si mi l ar t o def endant ' s t ar get i ng Pr of essor

Schi f f man as second degr ee i dent i t y thef t - - whi ch r equi r es f or

i t s pr oof evi dence of i nt ent t o cause hi ghl y speci f i c i nj ur y of a

non- r eput at i onal sor t - - t he par t i cul ar count s of i dent i t y thef t

wi t h whi ch def endant was charged i n the i ndi ct ment ' s t op t wo

count s wer e not suf f i ci ent l y pr oved.

Turni ng t o t he r emai ni ng wel t er of convi ct i ons - - al l

f or mi sdemeanor s, I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat def endant ' s

convi ct i ons f or aggr avat ed harassment must be vacat ed and the

cor r espondi ng count s of t he i ndi ct ment di smi ssed, si nce t he

st atut e under whi ch t hose convi ct i ons wer e obt ai ned, Penal Law

240. 30 ( 1) ( a) , i s unconst i t ut i onal l y over br oad. I al so agr ee

t hat t her e was a f ai l ur e of pr oof as t o whet her def endant ' s use of

NYU comput ers was unauthor i zed wi t hi n t he meani ng of Penal Law

156. 05. I , however , par t company wi t h t he maj or i t y as t o i t s

- 1 -


20/23

- 2 - No. 72

di smi ssal of onl y some of t he i ndi ct ment ' s cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on

count s and i t s det er mi nat i on t o l eave def endant ' s t hi r d- degr ee

f or ger y convi ct i ons undi st ur bed.

I n di smi ssi ng some, but not al l , of t he second degr ee

cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on ( Penal Law 190. 25) count s, t he maj or i t y

expr esses t he vi ew t hat , i n addi t i on t o addr essi ng i mper sonat i on

i nt ended t o cause economi c i nj ur y or t o i nt er f er e wi t h gover nment

oper at i ons - - t he obj ect i ves t r adi t i onal l y under st ood t o i nf or m

t he mi sdemeanor - - t he cr i me may al so be premi sed on an i ntent t o

cause r eput at i onal i nj ur y. The st at ut e, t he maj or i t y hol ds,

shoul d be read t o pr ot ect r eput at i on when more t han a pr ank i s

i nvol ved, si nce many peopl e val ue reput at i on more t han money, and

si nce, as I ago i n a moment of f amous i r ony remarks t o Ot hel l o, "he

t hat f i l ches f r om me my good name Robs me of t hat whi ch not

enr i ches hi m And makes me poor i ndeed. " Ther e i s, of cour se,

not hi ng i n t he l anguage of t he st at ut e t o pr event i t s use i n t he

manner pr oposed by t he maj or i t y - - but t hat i s t he pr obl em. The

st at ut e, as wr i t t en, al l ows a cri mi nal convi ct i on f or

i mper sonat i on pr ovi ded onl y t hat i t i s meant t o be har mf ul or

benef i ci al i n any way. I t i s hard t o i magi ne any pseudonymous

communi cat i on t hat coul d not be pr osecut ed under t hi s st atut e.

And, i n an age i n whi ch pseudonymous communi cat i on has become

ubi qui t ous, part i cul ar l y on t he i nt ernet , t hi s stat ut e, l i t eral l y

under st ood, cr i mi nal i zes a vast amount of speech t hat t he Fi r st

Amendment pr ot ect s.

- 2 -


21/23

- 3 - No. 72

The probl em of t he st at ut e' s subst ant i al overbreadt h i s

not obvi at ed by t he cour t ' s pronouncement t hat t he enact ment

shoul d not be under st ood t o cr i mi nal i ze conduct not i nt ended t o

cause "r eal har m. " Apar t f r om t he f act t hat t he di st i nct i on t he

maj or i t y has dr awn does not r ender t he st at ut e beni gn, si nce many

t hi ngs sai d usi ng an assumed i dent i t y ar e const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ect ed f r om ci vi l or cr i mi nal sanct i on, even t hough t hey ar e

more than pr anks and are i nt ended t o cause r eal harm or t o obt ai n

r eal benef i t , * t hi s pr osecut i on' s use of t he st at ut e was not

l i mi t ed i n t he way t he Cour t now says i t shoul d have been.

Al t hough def endant , af t er t he deni al of hi s mot i on t o

di smi ss on t he gr ound, among other s, of st atut ory over br eadt h,

sought t o have t he j ur y char ged so as t o l i mi t t he st at ut e' s

r each, t he t r i al cour t ' s char ge di d not do t hat and t her e i s no

basi s now t o suppose t hat t he convi ct i ons at i ssue wer e r ender ed

i n obser vance of t he di st i nct i on t hi s Cour t has r et r ospect i vel y

dr awn; f i ve of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on convi ct i ons concededl y

wer e not , and i t i s ent i r el y specul at i ve t hat t he r emai ni ng ni ne

were.

The probl em wi t h t he cr i mi nal i mpersonat i on convi ct i ons

i s not t hat t hey wer e i nsuf f i ci ent l y suppor t ed. The evi dence as

t o each of t he count s was more t han adequat e t o pr ove t he of f ense

as def i ned i n t he st at ut e and as char ged. The r eason t hat t he

*I t i s di f f i cul t t o i magi ne, f or exampl e, t hat an i l l -i ntended, pseudonymousl y ut t ered comment about I ago or hi s modernequi val ent woul d be act i onabl e ci vi l l y, much l ess cr i mi nal l y.

- 3 -


22/23

- 4 - No. 72

convi ct i ons must be vacat ed and t he cor r espondi ng count s

di smi ssed, i s r at her t hat t he st at ut e under whi ch t hey wer e

obt ai ned i s unconst i t ut i onal l y br oad, and subst ant i al l y so.

The use of t he t hi r d degr ee f orger y st at ut e ( Penal

Law 170. 05) t o t he same end as t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on

stat ut e i s, I bel i eve, s i mi l ar l y obj ect i onabl e. Tr eat i ng

pseudonymous emai l s as f or ger i es when t hey ar e made wi t h some

i nt ent t o " i nj ur e" i n some undef i ned way i s no di f f er ent t han

penal i zi ng i mper sonat i on i n i nt er net communi cat i on f or t he same

amorphous pur pose. Bot h t r eat ment s gi ve pr osecut ors power t hey

shoul d not have t o det ermi ne what speech shoul d and shoul d not be

penal i zed.

I f def endant has caused r eput at i onal i nj ur y, t hat

i s redressabl e, i f at al l , as a ci vi l t or t , not as a cr i me.

Cr i mi nal l i bel has l ong si nce been abandoned ( see Gar r i son v

Loui si ana, 379 US 64, 69 [ 1964] ) , not l east of al l because of i t s

t endency i n pr act i ce t o penal i ze and chi l l speech t hat t he

const i t ut i on pr otect s ( see Asht on v Kent ucky, 384 US 195, 200- 201

[ 1966] ) , and i t has been decades si nce New Yor k' s cr i mi nal l i bel

st at ut e was r epeal ed. The use of t he cr i mi nal i mper sonat i on and

f orger y st atut es now appr oved amount s t o an at avi sm at odds wi t h

t he Fi r st Amendment and the f r ee and uni nhi bi t ed exchange of i deas

i t i s meant t o f ost er .

I woul d di smi ss t he i ndi ct ment i n i t s ent i r et y.

- 4 -


23/23

- 5 - No. 72

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der modi f i ed by vacat i ng t he convi ct i on on count s 2, 3, 5, 23,29, 40, 42, 44, 48 and 51 of t he i ndi ct ment , di smi ssi ng t hose

count s of t he i ndi ct ment , and r emi t t i ng t he case t o Supr eme Cour t ,New Yor k Count y, f or r esent enci ng and, as so modi f i ed, af f i r med.Opi ni on by J udge Abdus- Sal aam. J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Smi t h,Pi got t and Ri ver a concur . Chi ef J udge Li ppman di ssent s i n par t i nan opi ni on.

Deci ded May 13, 2014

- 5 -

People v Raphael Golb

Documents

Transcript of People v Raphael Golb