What Exactly Was Raphael Golb Convicted Of? -Dead Sea Scrolls Trial

Equality, Liberty, Fraternity
French Revolution, Masonic emblem

People know that Raphael Golb was found "guilty" in criminal court last week. But what do people think he was found "guilty" of?

I suspect a lot of people assume Raphael Golb was found "guilty" of making up "lies" about Dr. Lawrence Schiffman plagiarizing his father.

I thought making up a lie about someone is "defamation" or "libel." And if the court decides there could possibly be some plausibility to the accusation, it's not "defamation" anymore. And I thought that's a matter for civil court to figure out.


Raphael Golb's case was in criminal court. The jury was told that whether Raphael Golb's accusations of plagiarism are true or false, was irrelevant to the case. I guess because that's a question for a civil "defamation" suit. 

So- No, Raphael Golb was not found guilty of "making up" plagiarism charges against Dr. Schiffman.
Then what exactly was Raphael Golb found "guilty" of?

Keep in mind that the District Attorney's office sought up to 4 years for Raphael Golb, upstate in Reikers Island State Penitentiary. And in fact after the sentencing, rather than let Raphael wait for the Appeals office to open in 2 hours, it was ruled that Raphael should be shackled immediately and sent upstate on the very next bus to Rikers Island State Penitentiary. I wonder what horrendous crimes they thought Raphael Golb might have committed in those 2 hours. 

I like to compare Raphael Golb's sentence to that of a man I once met who also served 4 years in the same State Penitentiary, for the rape of a woman he noticed jogging along the parkway. The rest was parole.

I will focus mainly on the felonies, two counts of "identity theft." A definition of "identity theft" was read to the jury. 


The definition was not about what Raphael Golb wrote or said or did- it was about Raphael's intentions for doing so.

Raphael Golb, with
his lawyer Ron Kuby (left)

The definition read to the jury defined an intention as "criminal" if Raphael had any "intent to receive a benefit." The words used in this definition escalated from mild to severe - but the jury only needed to choose one.

There was also "intent to harm" and so on, but here again, the words escalated from mild to severe, and the jury only had to choose one.

The jury had to decide if it had been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Raphael Golb had indeed done even one of these things, for each charge.

"Benefit, harm"- these words are ambiguous to me. In the words of New York Times reporter John Eligon:

"After the verdict was read, Mr. Golb and his lawyers blamed Justice Carol Berkman’s instructions to the jury in State Supreme Court in Manhattan for his conviction.

"They said the judge had not defined what type of benefit Mr. Golb had to receive, and what sort of harm his actions had to cause, for him to be found guilty."

This is true. One side note, however: I was present while Raphael Golb and his lawyers said this, and I did not hear Raphael Golb or his lawyers say they "blamed" Justice Carol Berkman, or "blamed" anyone at all.

Occasionally the jury was given a definition for an ambiguous word- but the definitions also used vague words. There were no examples or specifics. It was unclear to me, just how big does the intended "benefit" have to be? How small? Can it be as small as, say, a pat on the back?

Most of all, I wonder what the jury thought a "benefit" was. Or "harm," etc. And what they imagined Raphael would think was a "benefit."

Rikers Island State Penitentiary, NY

where Raphael Golb,
the son of an academic rival,
could be sentenced to 4 years. . .

. . .for certain emails that he sent

perhaps hoping 

to "obtain a benefit"

or perhaps hoping to "annoy,"

by parodying a professor;

And email accounts he opened

-including many he never used;

And for a name he invented;

And for perhaps hoping

the professor might not get $650.

[But which the professor got.]

It seems to me, that if the definition of the felony "identity theft" simply means "intending to receive a benefit," the jury had almost no choice but to convict Raphael of the felony. Can you think of anything you have ever done in your life from which you did not hope to receive some kind of a "benefit"?

One of the non-felony charges against Raphael Golb rested on the words "did he intend to annoy anyone." There were other words, of escalating severity, but again, the jury had to only choose one. Good heavens the man I spoke to in the token booth this morning annoyed me.

So in answer to the question: What exactly was Raphael Golb convicted of? I'm afraid that I don't know. I can't understand the charges.

I wonder if even Raphael Golb knows; in fact, I'd be surprised if he did.

What does this case set a precedent for? What happens to "scholarly debate," especially online? What happens to anonymity? Does this mean now that anyone who says something negative about a person, and demonstrates in good faith what they believe to be proof, could go to jail?

Colleen Long quotes Ron Kuby, in her quite fair and balanced AP article (with contribution from Jennifer Peltz), Oct 1 :
http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/09/30/2494785/ny-jurors-get-id-theft-case-tied.html

Raphael's defense lawyer Ron Kuby, a criminal case First Amendment attorney, told reporters after the conviction, as quoted in the above AP article:

"Today what happened was the District Attorney of New York County and the trial court made hurting somebody's feelings a criminal act," he said. "And in New York, hurting people's feelings or being annoying is not a crime, we call that Monday." 
 ___________________________________

One odd, but revealing, detail of the verdict was that the only "not guilty" was in regard to Jeffery Gibson, but for no reason I can think of. Perhaps the "not guilty" was based on Raphael Golb's testimony that he "kind of liked the guy"? It shows me a randomness in their decisions, possibly a lack of grasp of the issues. They were issues that would fill a book (and probably will).

_____________________

I am an English teacher. All my information and interpretations come from what I witnessed at the trial and read online. I took notes at the trial as best I could, and have looked for as much online as I can; but I do not always understand the nuances in law, or scholarship. If you see errors, please drop me a line.