According to New York trial judge Althea Drysdale’s opinion on Tuesday in People v. Amin:
This case involves an incident where the Defendant is accused of stalking, taunting, and harassing a group of Israeli citizens for over ten minutes while they were sightseeing in Times Square. This behavior culminated in the assault of one of the tourists. The Defendant is seeking to dismiss the charges of Stalking in the First Degree, Stalking in the Third Degree, and Aggravated Harassment, claiming that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove the necessary element of a “course of conduct” for those crimes. [Note: The decision did not address the assault charge. -EV]
Statement of Allegations
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023, around 9:30 pm, the Complainant, an Israeli citizen, was visiting New York City with six friends. They decided to stop by Times Square for sightseeing. Some members of the group were wearing items that indicated their religious affiliation. Specifically, all five male members wore “kippahs” and visible “tzitzits.” After exiting the subway station at 42nd Street and Times Square, they were approached by a man, later identified as the Defendant, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent. The Defendant was wearing a red and white “keffiyeh” around his head and face.
Initially, the Defendant was playing loud English music on a speaker. However, upon seeing the group, he switched to Arabic music and made anti-Semitic remarks, including expressing support for Hamas and stating that “the Jews have to die.” The Defendant followed the group closely for over ten minutes, covering at least six city blocks. Video evidence shows the Defendant gesturing at the group and always staying behind them, even when they changed directions.
When the group reached the TKTS Red Stairs at 47th Street, they alerted a security guard to the Defendant’s actions. The guard told the Defendant to leave them alone, but he continued to follow them. The Defendant made more anti-Semitic remarks and eventually physically assaulted the Complainant before fleeing and being arrested.
The court dismissed the defendant’s First Amendment defense:
The Court determined that the defendant’s claim of exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech was not valid. The anti-stalking statute in New York prohibits a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical harm, regardless of the speech involved. The court cited previous cases where aggressive actions accompanied by threatening words were not protected by the First Amendment.
The court found sufficient evidence to support a hate crime charge:
The prosecution presented enough evidence for a fact-finder to conclude that the defendant targeted and attacked the victims because of their protected characteristics, such as their religious affiliation. This evidence supports a hate crime charge.
In a disturbing case, the Defendant targeted the victim based on their perceived sexual orientation, as evidenced by the use of homophobic slurs before shooting the victim at close range and making derogatory comments about their significant other. The court dismissed the argument that this was a single incident, emphasizing that a “course of conduct” involves a pattern of behavior over time with a continuity of purpose.
While there is no specific definition of “course of conduct” in the stalking statute, courts have consistently defined it as a series of acts demonstrating a continuity of purpose. Isolated incidents do not qualify as a course of conduct, as seen in previous cases where singular actions were not considered as such. However, incidents occurring within a short timeframe can be deemed a course of conduct, as shown in cases where repeated actions over a brief period were recognized as such.
In this particular case, the Defendant engaged in a series of threatening and harassing acts towards the complainants over a span of approximately twelve minutes. Despite the short duration, the nature and frequency of the Defendant’s actions exhibited a continuity of purpose, leading the court to determine that it constituted a course of conduct as defined by the law.
Assistant D.A. Edward Smith is representing the prosecution in this case.
Source link
