 |
Poet Frederick Seidel, in 2006 called "the best American poet writing today" by the New York Sun. Raphael Golb testified that he was the inspiration for the name 'Jonathan Seidel' |
Did the jury understand why they convicted Raphael Golb of a felony?
I found a copy online of the original Grand Jury Indictment of Raphael Golb. I knew that he had been convicted of the felony of Identity Theft, and I soon figured out that "Identity Theft in the Second Degree" was a felony, while "Identity Theft in the Third Degree" was not a felony but a misdemeanor.
The definition of these two types of "Identity Theft" were very similar- it was a difference of one extra phrase. I know I sound condescending but I wonder if the jury realized the difference, if they realized that one was a felony and the other was not.
In the sentence I am referring to, both definitions begin with the words "[he] thereby committed..." The felony type, "Identity Theft in the Second Degree," adds this phrase:
"and attempted to commit a felony and acted as an accessory to the commission of a felony." Italics of course mine.
Looking at this wording, and going back to the instructions to the jury, I infer that this means they say he committed one crime (pretending to be Dr. Schiffman "confessing" in the "gmails," I assume), with the idea that in doing that crime, he was additionally "attempting" to get a second result as well- a second crime- in this case, a crime they refer to as a felony: "an accessory felony".
I gather but am not sure, that it sounds like the first crime is the "main" crime, and the second crime that he "attempted," could conceivably follow as a result of the first crime.
The definition for "Identity Theft in the Third Degree" only refers to the first crime (the "gmail" "confession," I assume), and is a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
"Attempting" to cause the second crime- a crime they refer to as a felony in this case- to follow as a result of the first crime, appears to be what turned the whole caboodle into a felony, becoming "Identity Theft in the Second Degree."
 |
Six policemen with guns and handcuffs arrested Raphael Golb in his bed, the son of an academic rival . . .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.] |
Now that he was accused of a felony, I assume that explains why they sent six policemen with guns and handcuffs to arrest him in his bed? -Raphael Golb, fellow Jew, and son of an academic rival?
See my previous post:
Six Policemen With Guns and Handcuffs
Keep in mind that I have no training in law, and I may be making some mistakes here. If anyone sees a mistake, please drop me a line. Also, my posts are based on the original Indictment, as I said. I am aware that the final Indictment had almost half the number charges, but I have not yet discovered it online. Anyway the original Indictment tells me a lot about what they had in mind originally.
That Second "Felony"
What is this resultant second "felony" he "attempted"? Raphael Golb's "gmail" "confessions" drew attention to Raphael's charges of plagiarism. What more do they think Raphael wanted to do in the "gmails" besides that?
My notes tell me that the second crime was that by sending the "gmails," Raphael was additionally "attempting" to get a lecture canceled that Dr. Schiffman was planning to give at the Jewish Museum.
He was "attempting" to get it canceled? There it is again- the crime refers only to Raphael Golb's intentions, not his results.
Why would Raphael's "gmails" cause Dr. Schiffman's lecture to be canceled? I found those "gmail" "confessions" online, and nowhere did any of them mention any lecture or museum at all. Let's take a closer look.
Museum Lecture: Accusation. . . or "Confession"?
For sake of argument, let's just pretend for a moment that Raphael Golb's "intention" in sending those "gmails" really was to get that lecture canceled- but why the heck is that a crime?
First, let's recall what the "Identity Theft" conviction is for (the "gmail" aspect of the "crime"), as defined for the jury. The jury convicted Raphael Golb of a crime for "intending" to make people believe that the "gmail" "confession" of plagiarism was actually written by Dr. Schiffman himself.
Recall that it was expressed many times during this trial, that Raphael was not on trial for accusing Dr. Schiffman of plagiarism- I assume because that would be defamation, libel- a civil case, not a criminal case.
Now, which makes more sense, A or B?:
(A) Does it really make sense to believe that the Jewish Museum might have canceled Dr. Schiffman's lecture BECAUSE they thought that Dr. Schiffman had actually, himself, "confessed" in an email to being a plagiarist?
(B) Doesn't it make more sense that the Museum might cancel his lecture because they heard that there were accusations of plagiarism that somebody else had made against Dr. Schiffman?
That's not Identity Theft. Not by the definition given to the jury.
That's defamation, libel, whatever you want to call it- a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Yes there is always the possibility that the Museum, hearing of Raphael Golb's accusations, and remembering Raphael's father's accusations in his 1995 book, or the article by the Israeli journalist, might think about canceling the lecture of someone who has been accused of plagiarism by somebody else.
But that's not what Raphael was convicted of. Because that's not a crime. The jury was told that only if the Museum believed that Dr. Schiffman himself had "confessed," could it possibly be a crime, under the definition read to the jury of "Identity Theft" in both the Second and Third degree. Otherwise it's garden variety libel. Civil, civil, civil.
Isn't this nuts? Was the jury confused?
 |
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.] |
4 Years in Rikers Penitentiary for $650?
And there's more I don't understand. Let's pretend that the museum had actually believed that Dr. Schiffman himself had "confessed" to plagiarism- why is that a felony?
Unless it's about money. Real honest-to-goodness "Identity Theft" generally requires that money be stolen, according to the newspapers covering the trial, who said that that Raphael Golb's case is the first time it would apply to a non-financial "crime." I checked my notes: witness for the prosecution Susan Braunstein of the Jewish Museum, where she is Curator of Archaeology and Judaica, who I believe arranged the exhibit and his lecture, testified that Dr. Schiffman made $650 for that lecture.
$650? That's worth 4 years in Rikers Island State Penitentiary?
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.
And don't forget the cherry on top- to be a felony, Raphael needed only to "attempt" to get that lecture canceled. How is anybody qualified to guess Raphael's "intentions" "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If there is any "reasonable doubt," that's the end of the felony. The so-called "Idenity Theft" goes back to the Third Degree, a misdemeanor.
Is it so impossible to believe that maybe Raphael Golb might not have "intended" to have Dr. Schiffman's lecture canceled? Is it so impossible to believe that Raphael Golb simply "intended" to have his point of view be heard?
In actuality, Dr. Schiffman's lecture at the Jewish Museum was not cancelled. The Archaeology and Judaica Curator for the Museum, witness for the prosecution, testified that the Museum already knew of the plagiarism allegations against Dr. Schiffman- from Raphael's father's 1995 book; the museum engaged Dr. Schiffman anyway.
 |
Frederick Seidel's poetry collection "Ooga-Booga" won the 2006 Los Angeles Times Book Prize. Raphael Golb testified that he was the inspiration for the name 'Jonathan Seidel' |
What a tangle of words, definitions, sentence structures. And for what? To convict Raphael Golb of the worst possible form of crime? To convict Raphael Golb of a felony rather than for libel (or at least another misdemeanor)? Some guy on a computer, not even a scholar, accusing someone of plagiarism? The son of an academic rival?
"Debate," Not Exclusion
Do I believe that Raphael Golb's "confession" "gmails" included an "attempt" to have Dr. Schiffman's lecture canceled? I heard Raphael's continual call, on the stand, for a "free and open debate" -so many times, that it became the theme of this trial. I never heard Raphael say that he thought Dr. Schiffman should have been canceled. I only heard Raphael say that he doesn't think his own father should have been excluded. I heard Raphael Golb say that he wished his father had also been invited, so that both sides could have had a "free and open debate." It takes two to "debate."
In her testimony, the Curator at the Jewish Museum, witness for the prosecution, testified that no one ever asked her to cancel Dr. Schiffman's lecture. She testified that a friend of the Golbs offered to pay to have Raphael Golb's father come to lecture in addition to Schiffman, but not in place of Schiffman.
I believe Raphael Golb when he testified that his intention was to call attention to the fact that his father and colleagues were continually excluded from museum exhibits and lectures; and to the fact that his father had accused Dr. Schiffman of plagiarism, but no inquiry had been made into it.
If I Was on a Jury
A couple of additional observations:
I don't recall an explanation to the jury as to why there might be two counts of a charge, or three counts etc., of some of the charges, instead of just one count. Shouldn't that have been made very clear? If I was on a jury, I would want to know why it's not simply one count. After all, I have someone's life in my hands.
I don't recall an explanation to the jury as to which charges were felonies and which were misdemeanors. If I was on a jury, I would for sure want to know, since the consequences in someone's life for a felony are so much worse than for a misdemeanor. I have someone's life in my hands.
I fail to understand how Raphael Golb was accused of "falsifying business records." Did the jury really understand?
For related posts, see:
What Exactly was Raphael Golb Convicted Of?
Raphael Golb Did Not Know of a 'Jonathan Seidel'
Raphael Golb Describes Creating the Name 'Jonathan Seidel'
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.
