Tuesday’s opinion from New York Trial Judge Althea Drysdale people v. amin:
The case stems from an incident in which the defendant allegedly stalked, taunted and harassed a group of Israeli citizens for more than ten minutes while sightseeing in Times Square, ultimately assaulting one of the tourists. As part of the omnibus motion, the defendants moved to dismiss charges of first-degree stalking…, third-degree stalking… and aggravated harassment… arguing that prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence to constitute the necessary elements of the “course.” ”. [The decision appeared not to deal with the assault charge. -EV] …
statement of charges
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023, at approximately 9:30 pm, the complainant (an Israeli citizen) was visiting New York City with six friends and decided to stop by Times Square for sightseeing. Several members of the group wore items revealing their religious beliefs: Specifically, all five male members of the group wore “kippahs,” a traditional Jewish headscarf also known as a “yarmulke,” and The visible “tzitzits” are the strings that decorate the corners of the “tallit”, a Jewish prayer shawl worn under clothing throughout the day.
After exiting the subway station at 42nd Street and Times Square, the group encountered a man, later identified as the defendant, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent. The complainant noticed that the defendant was wearing what the complainant described as a red and white “keffiyeh” headdress on his head and face, which is a traditional headdress worn by men in the Middle East.
When the defendant initially played what the complainant described as “loud British music” on a speaker in his hand, the complainant observed that after seeing the complainant and his group of friends, the defendant changed the music to a song in Arabic. Almost immediately after doing so, the defendant said “Free Palestine” and said “the Jews must die.” The complainant also recalled that the defendant generally stated that he was “pleased with what Hamas is doing to the Jews” and repeatedly shouted “Allah Kashi,” which the complainant understood to mean “God is great” in Arabic ”. The complainant further heard the defendant say that he was “willing to die for Gaza”.
The actions lasted at least ten minutes and lasted for at least six blocks. Video surveillance introduced as evidence by the grand jury showed that the defendant followed the group the entire time, always directly behind it, even though the sidewalk area appeared to be more than fifty feet wide in some places. On several occasions, we see the defendant holding the speaker in one hand and gesturing to the crowd. At one point, the group deviated from their straight route and instead walked diagonally through the pedestrian area of Times Square, and defendant was observed changing his direction so that he could follow the new path diagonally Follow this group of people.
When the group arrived at the TKTS red staircase on 47th Street in Times Square, the complainant said he and his group approached a security guard who alerted them to the defendant’s behavior. According to the complainant, the security guard approached the defendant and instructed the defendant to stop following the group and leave them alone, to which the defendant responded in summary and substance: “Jews are fearful people and they go to the police station to consult. . . ….We’ll see you now.
When the group turned back and headed back in the direction they came from, the defendant also turned back and followed them at close range. When the group stopped and shouted to the defendant to stop following them, the defendant allegedly replied “Free Palestine.” Another respondent to the complainant shouted “Fuck Palestine”.
As the group continued walking back to the subway, the defendant allegedly continued to yell that “Hamas should kill more people” and said he was “happy for what Hamas is doing” and “ready to fight for Hamas” He died like this.” The defendant allegedly followed the group around Times Square for more than twelve minutes while shouting what could be simply interpreted as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric. Video surveillance shows the defendant running toward the group and punching the group. his family. The complainant stated that he suffered facial pain from being beaten and the defendant was subsequently arrested at the scene.
The court rejected defendant’s First Amendment claim:
The court held that defendant’s argument was that he was exercising his constitutionally protected First Amendment right to free speech [is] No merit. Payton (“While some anti-stalking statutes specifically exclude constitutionally protected activities, New York’s statute is broader. It prohibits a series of conduct or repeated conduct over a period of time that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical harm.”); You can also take a look People v. CC (Westchester City-County Superior Court, 2016) (“But First Amendment free speech has its limits. Banging on someone’s window while calling him a vulgar slur goes beyond those limits. limit.
The court concluded that prosecutors presented “sufficient evidence of a hate crime”:
[T]There is clearly sufficient evidence here for a fact finder to reasonably infer that the defendants selected the complainants and committed these acts because of their protected characteristics. See e.g. People v. Morales (January 1, 2024) (When the defendant yelled a homophobic slur at the victim before shooting the victim in the face at close range and later making derogatory comments about the victim’s significant other at the time of his arrest.)… …
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that this was a single incident and therefore not a “course of conduct” under the tracking statute:
While “course of conduct” is not specifically defined in the tracking statute, courts generally adopt the broadly accepted definition… [of] A “course of conduct” is “a pattern of behavior consisting of a series of actions over a period of time, however brief, indicating continuity of purpose.” …
An “isolated incident” does not constitute a “course of conduct.” look People v. Valerio (NY Ct. App. 1983) (finding that yelling at a union official once while picketing outside union headquarters did not constitute a “pattern of conduct” under the harassment statute.); people v. wood (NY Ct. App. 1983) (“Because no evidence was presented at trial that defendant’s conduct was anything other than an isolated incident, the People failed to prove that defendant was guilty of the harassment as charged.”) Where a short period of time or a single, isolated incident is shown, the court is unlikely to find that the defendant’s conduct constituted a “course of conduct.” See People v. Barrow (The defendant threatened to kill his neighbor several times within a few minutes, but it did not form a course of behavior); People v. Castro (The defendant’s “spontaneous, emotional, verbal outburst, including repeated expletives, during an argument did not constitute a course of conduct under this section of the statute.”)
However, the courts have recognized that events occurring over a short period of time can be considered a “course of conduct” for purposes of the tracing statute…. For example, in people v. givens (Crim. Ct. Kings Cty. 2020) (Gingold, J.) The court held that two phone calls were sufficient to establish repeated conduct or a “course of conduct.” The court further held that “nine or more” phone calls in two days were sufficient to constitute a “course of conduct.” exist people v. murray (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 1995) (Stoltz, J.), the court held that when the defendant followed the complainant to her office building and prevented her from entering the building, he continued to follow her and forcibly prevented her from seeking help from other pedestrians. , and finally tried to drag her into Central Park…
In this case, the defendant allegedly taunted, threatened, and assaulted the complainant for more than ten minutes while following the complainant through multiple neighborhoods after both the complainant and security personnel asked him to stop. The defendant apparently committed “a series of acts” and allegedly made multiple verbal threats, some of which wished for the complainant’s death, played what the defendant described as “Hamas music” and followed the complainant throughout the proceedings for more than ten minutes. Finally, one of the complainants was allegedly punched in the face.
The acts were “committed over a period of time,” albeit a relatively short period of time, approximately twelve minutes. In determining the significance of this 12-minute time frame, courts will consider the shocking number and different types of harassment that occurred during that time period. The content of the defendant’s statements and conduct during this period clearly demonstrated “continuity of purpose.” For these reasons, the court found that the defendant’s alleged conduct throughout the matter clearly constituted a “course of conduct” intended by the legislature.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Smith represented the prosecution.
