P E R J U R Y.
Our court system is a joke as they are often manipulated by malicious prosecutors like Anjelica Gregory who "Suborned Perjury" + like Brent Ferguson who committed "Fraud on the Court."
And why not? Our Supreme Court Justices themselves perjure, and the NY Court of Appeals over-looks irrefutable proof.
Prosecutors often bend laws/break in order to win bad convictions.
​
We are grateful to Governor Cuomo for his newly appointed Commission of Prosecutor Accountability.

*Anjelica Gregory lost her job within days of a Suborn Perjury complaint was made public.

To our 37+ MILLION friends + supporters, AND our estimated 1MILLION new visitors + supporters each month,

Manhattan DA Suborns Perjury And Brooke LIED after a Disorderly Conduct was refused.
Cy Vance’s office opportunistically targeted a Sandy Hook First Responder for responding and manipulated actress/model Brooke into lying on stand.
*Ms. Shields is on record asking that NO CHARGES be filed, nor harm to come.

Perjury is a CRIME, NOT A TACTIC.

IN OUR 30 YEARS WE ARE SUPPORTED BY/WORKED WITH::
ABC’s The View + GMA.
NBC’s Today Show
CAA
PMK
Harpo
Julianne Moore
Sarah Jessica Parker
Liv Tyler
Hugh Jackman
to name a few.

MENTORED BY:
Michael Ovitz
Craig Zadan
Bill Ackman. 

The Manhattan DA offered a Disordly Conduct over our work for Newtown after the Sandy Hook Massacre. Specifically the Hallmark Cards c0-sponsored tree trimming event held in Newtown on its first Anniversary.

Unlike the Manhattan DA, we would NOT perjure ourselves into accepting Sandy Hook as harassment.

The Manhattan DA acted on behalf of an individual who says in her paranoia, she holds onto a list of some 2000 people who she’s somehow made fearful by.

*One in particular was made out to be a stalker despite his being gay, offered up a list of 4boyfriends at the time, dozens of witnesses. and computer forensics that claim otherwise.
*Computer Forensics also proved that Ms. Shields was in fact a liar as it disproved her every word of testimony.

Without any bit of professionalism and a suspected high profile win, Cy Vance’s office acted without merit and recreated the past to fit their narrative Upon learning the Manhattan DA made a mistake, ADA Anjelica Gregory offered a slap on the wrist if we lied. When we refused, the Manhattan DA "Suborned Perjury" from Brooke Shields to manipulate the court by committing "Fraud on the Court." and committed the same crime to the New York Court of Appeals.

***WHEN ADA’s SUBORN PERJURY, COURT OF APPEALS IS RENDERED USELESS. 
​

Why Emmett Till’s case matters to American history and our future?


WHY??


Whenever there’s an imbalance of power,
JUSTICE IS NEVER SERVED.


Brooke Shields is our
Carolyn Bryant Dohnam, a privileged white woman who lied, and destroyed lives in the process.


ITS IMPORTANT TO MENTION:
Brooke Shields wasn’t intending to destroy, in fact in testimony, Ms. Shields is quoted saying she hadn’t wanted any charges filed. She just wanted to create a record in case there was an actual problem.


Apparently, Ms. Shields has had to contend with a lot of unwanted attention. I support any vigilance! However, I do NOT appreciate her self describing hyper- vigilance.


It’s dangerous.




“Hypervigilance is an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviors whose purpose is to detect activity.


Hypervigilance may bring about a state of increased anxiety which can cause exhaustion. Other symptoms include: abnormally increased arousal, a high responsiveness to stimuli, and a constant scanning of the environment.


In hypervigilance, there is a perpetual scanning of the environment to search for sights, sounds, people, behaviors, smells, or anything else that is reminiscent of activity, threat or trauma. The individual is placed on high alert in order to be certain danger is not near. Hypervigilance can lead to a variety of obsessive behavior patterns, as well as producing difficulties with social interaction and relationships.


Hypervigilance can be a symptom of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and various types of anxiety disorders and a paranoia.


Hypervigilance is differentiated from dysphoric hyperarousal in that the person remains cogent and aware of their surroundings. In dysphoric hyperarousal, a person with PTSD may lose contact with reality and re-experience the traumatic event verbatim. Where there have been multiple traumas, a person may become hypervigilant and suffer severe anxiety attacks intense enough to induce a delusional state where the effects of related traumas overlap.”




In Brooke’s recent biography, she self explains her own difficulties of mental illness. So much in fact that it led to her having to showering at college in a bathing suit, an uncontrollable need to control that left one child disfigured, her pulling over while driving with her babies out of fear of an intentional crash, and visions of throwing her babies out an apartment window.


We’d like to think Ms. Shields is not evil, but she is in fact untruthful.


The real problem here is justice- or the lack of!


Prosecutors are rarely held accountable which is why these last few years in New York, we’ve seen unpalatable abuse in New York’s highest two law enforcement agencies- the Attorney General, and District Attorney.


Mr. Eric Schneiderman’s abuse existed both in and out of office and had been forced to concede. We have seen the “Pay-For-Play” mentality of the Manhattan DA that caused an influx of write in candidates in the recent election. So much so that Justice Advocate Shaun King has created a national movement for prosecutor accountability. It’s safe to say that this will most definitely be Cy Vance’s last years in office terrifying New Yorkers.




I’m proud to say I joined Mr. Fliedner in his recent District Attorney election campaign that garnered such support of many Hollywood advocates like Piper Perabo. I reached out to my supporters as well and added Patricia Arquette, Rosie O’Donnel, and several others. The New York Post was also quick to narrate a “bromance” with Mr. Fliedner and myself after we publicly discussed holding Suborn Perjuring Prosecutors accountable.


The problem is not Brooke Shields- although she didn’t have to commit perjury, she has children and must remain vigilant. However, hyper-vigilance according to the CDC, is a form of mental illness.


We believe she was a pawn of an opportunist District Attorney.


I also believe she lied in court to be spiteful. I had referenced Brooke’s god-mother Lila Wisdom and implied a relationship after dating a former boss of Ms. Wisdom’s. I was told Ms. Wisdom presented Teri as her girlfriend, and somehow Brooke wasn’t pleased. Brooke also didn’t like the fact that Brooke was also corrected at her AOLBuild event. Brooke told her invited audience that her mother was insecure. I warmly told her that she wasn’t to me or my family and she was a force to be reckoned with. She worked alongside my family tirelessly that led to my childhood abuser being held accountable and eventually prosecuted.


Brooke didn’t like either.


Preparing for this case, it was uncovered that Ms. Shields pays her god mother a monthly salary. I believe it’s alimony and part of her and Teri’s separation. As I said, I dated a former boss of Ms. Wisdom’s and that was everyone’s understanding. Mrs. Shields also confided in a man who woukdckater become a very close friend.


Brooke lied in court.


That’s what I know- it’s what I’ve proved.


As I learned that I was going to be unjustly charged, I panicked. There was nothing questionable in my behavior and Sandy Hook was certainly a cause to rally behind. To secure a professional standing, I had sent a letter to a PMK Publicity in NY. Having been involved in non-profit since 1991, we had worked with PMK back in 2003. We planned an event for actress Nicole Kidman honoring her work in The Hours and both she and the film’s courage in its superb story telling addressing mental illness. The film discussed a subject that afflicts many individuals, and we honored its impact and applauded the film’s reach- a reach that would take us- if ever, a lifetime to achieve. With support of the brilliant producer Scott Rubin we planned a cocktail party to follow a screening of the film to honor Ms. Kidman and Scott Rudin’s film “The Hours.”


This is why we enlist celebrity. Celebrity we do not covet- celebrity we respect for its reach. We understand its impact and the ability to solve societal ills through story telling and exposure.


In the PMK letter, I detailed the misunderstanding. described how I was a victim of stalking, Anf that I understood its destruction and declared that I’d never be so violating.


The truth is, I have in my arsenal, leaders in all aspect of the Hollywood community, and never have imposed on any of my friends to succeed.


I talked hockey with Meryl Streep backstage while watching Sir Paul McCartney rehearse. I sat with Christy Brinkley with a 4 year old Alexa Ray on my lap while Billy Joel rehearsed We Didn’t Start The Fire, I was dancing with Gloria Estefan at the Model Cafe in NY and we all had dinner congratulating Jon Secada’s Broadway debut, I met with Shania Twain at her hotel room to then become her Billboard Award date, I discussed child advocacy with Madonna over dinner, I was also Iman’s date to a Sylvester Stallone premier of his film Oscar, years later I was also invited to Thanksgiving Dinner with Iman and David Bowie’s, I was a personal guest of Celine Dion and husband Rene to a private concert at the theater inside Madison Square Garden, I had coffee in La Canada with the Costners, Halle Berry gave me her number after we both worked on the same tv show, and talked Product Placement with Tom Cruise at his Desilu bungalow office on the Paramount lot.


I included Brooke Shields in our work at Sandy Hook, because I was grateful to her mother for her helping a broken kid. I included Brooke Shields in our work at Sandy Hook because she acknowledged to the world at AOLBuild event (seen on YouTube) that she was aware of our work and our intentions and I believed I had her support. She made every indication to the public and there is no discernible reason to have thought otherwise.


The problem is the vast corruption and improprieties of District Attorneys who are not held accountable!


The Manhattan District Attorney has come under great scrutiny for his accepting (and then returning) money from Weinstein and Trump. Many believe its for special considerations. We believe they’re bribes. We believe the alleged corruption has also been extended to Ms. Shields in the form of special “favors.” Brooke’s payment was paid in full by her publicist, Jill Fritzo. Fritzo used the “This Is Us” popularity and offered up her other client Sterling K. Brown to be used as a photo-op with Cy Vance.


After being falsely accused of harassment, and the fraudulent charges “Stacked” into stalking, ADA Anjelica Gregory offered a disorderly conduct after an altercation ensued over a parking spot that left my car vandalized. Had it actually been stalking involving children, than a slap on the wrist would be grossly irresponsible.


This is by definition malicious prosecution, and my only offense is standing up in defense.


The Manhattan DA, trumped up charges and “Stacked” them into stalking which is an irresponsible tactic and are too often used. The reasoning behind tactical “Stacking” is for a prosecutor to intimidate, bully, and force a plea of guilt. It doesn’t matter if there’s actual innocence or guilt, the threat of punishment is supposed to be so unbareable and so severe that the fear alone is enough to force a plea of guilt. 90% of Court cases brought are presented this way, which results of too many unjust guilty pleas. This means lives destroyed.


In New Tork, we have seen prosecutors that will WIN at any cost- including engaging in many unethical and often questionable acts of criminal conduct including but are not limited to “Suborn Perjury” and “Fraud of the Court.”


Ms. Gregory was the subject of a recent Suborn Perjury complaint and within two weeks of her current employer becoming aware, she was no longer employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP- the world’s 3 largest Law Firm.


Incidentally, thanks to my contacting the firm, I am now working with Kirkland & Ellis LLP to update the non-profit status of Sandy Hook’s first supporting organization, The Sandy Hook CenTer.


This is also where this nightmare began, in Sandy Hook after the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting.


In 2012, with the entire nation’s heart broken, there was a natural call to do an Act of Kindness for Sandy Hook. We came to Newtown on 21 December, 2012 after a week of gathering our resources and support.


We first met with Bill Ackman who provided us his charitable arm of Pershing Square Foundation as a resource and mentorship.


We also met with fellow neighbors:
Sarah Jessica Parker, who along with Farris Buehler himself Matthew Broderick, (Matthew is responsible for our initial philanthropic work some 25 years prior after first meeting at a house party.)
Julianne Moore, who hugs and kisses me.
Ricky Martin, who also kisses me.
Jake Gyllenhaal and his parents over lunch.
And Liv Tyler.


We came to Newtown to do an act of kindness. I knew NBC’s Ann Curry, and decided to one-up-her 1 Act, with 26 Acts.


In Newtown, we came as trauma/PTSD specialists and when we weren’t supporting the shattered family’s, or the broken firemen we could be found taking care of the memorial. Every night between 2am and 6am, we removed broken glass, burnt-out candies, and the withering flowers. With so many visitors- thousands and thousands of visitors, we wanted the mile long memorial as livery and joyful as possible to offset all the broken hearts.


As the memorial came down, the town had decided to destroy the hundreds of thousands of donated stuffed animals, rosaries, letter jackets, and gifts brought to console the many broken hearts. Our belief was there had already been too much damage, and with permission rescued dozens of stuffed animals and keep-sakes.


There was also a team that rescued and the three of us decided to “adopt” these bears out and send them to our several better known supporters.


And we did.


HENRY, originated in Sandy Hook. He was left at the Sandy Hook Memorial in the middle of Sandy Hook Village, just days after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Henry stands about 3’ high and stood proudly in the village center that welcomed all the visitors who came with broken hearts.


Henry was the first rescue.
He’s since been animated and is being made into a book. We are currently working with an incredible artist, along with JK Rowling’s charitable arm- Lumos.


Other rescues were sent to:
Anderson Cooper. I was on his daytime television show and gave it to him personally.
Sarah Jessica Parker has one and referred us to her business rep. We then arranged for a PSA for The View.
Liv Tyler has one.
Julianne Moore was given one, but asked us to hold onto him for safe keeping. She promised to attend the forthcoming opening and her involvement going forward.
Dr. Oz has one and had presented it him personally as a guest.
Liv Tyler has one as well.


Each recipient was asked to hold onto the “rescues” while we finalized the 5 April 2016 approved plans to build the Sandy Hook CenTer. At the opening friends of Newtown were asked to then return the ‘rescues’ at the ribbon cutting.


Sandy Hook CenTer was modeled after the Dunblane Centre in Dunblane, Scotland who similarly to Newtown suffered a horrific primary school shooting. In Newtown, we met with visiting leaders of Dunblane, and have since remained in touch.


The Honorable:
Justice Carol Edmead,
Justice Matthew Cooper, &
Justice Doris Ling-Cohan
publicly declared that Sandy Hook was not a legitimate cause.


Nor did Supreme Court Justices
Leslie E. Stein or
Eugene Fahey.


The problem with District Attorneys is that they are not held accountable. When they “STACK” charges to intimidate and force guilt, their findings are not valid. Despite the terrorization of “Stacking” many of the guilty are not in fact guilty. When you have an abusive acting prosecutor, seeking resolve from an appellate court is then proven unlikely.


Take the recent news events. I cannot mention the event because it’ll cloud the storyline. And whomever wishes to detract from fact will then cloud truths to again and solicit fear. Like what the Manhattan District Attorney has done.


Instead of highlighting the terror and trauma of losing a neighbor to gun violence, that I saw the horror of stalking and it being so upsetting that it caused me to not pursue a career I was formally trained in and ultimately gave up as a result. Despite that I was mentored by the powerful Michael Ovitz, or that I had presidents of studios assisting me, and had Academy Award winning actors pleading with me to remain, I still walked away.


ADA Anjelica Gregory submitted in court that a letter sent to a colleague, and not to Brooke was somehow a threat of violence, just because I mentioned an earlier trauma. Irresponsible and offensively misleading.


In recent events we saw what the result of “Stacking” does. A simple isolated incident of a disagreement is labeled harassment and quickly elevated to stalking for an efficient conviction.


The truth is that the man was harassing, and should have been disciplined accordingly. The truth was that the victim took it to law enforcement after she lost her job. Was she harassed, yes. Would she have reported him had she not lost her job, we don’t know. Was he stalking her? No. He didn’t even want her phone number to call or wished to see her. The man just wanted a friend, and was embarrassed and humiliated after she offended him.


Was he a stalker? No! Stalkers are categorized into four groups based on level of romantic interest.


The news paper however took his forced guilt and proceeded to create a biased sensationalized story meant to create “Click-Bait” to initiate revenue in a struggling medium.


***Its vital that we do not condone any act of violence, and condemn anyone that imposes upon another.


But, if we don’t identify what caused a madman to become the predator he was already labeled, I fear for the many innocents that will suffer/be lost as a result.


Prosecutors often abuse because there is no one holding them accountable. Suffice to say, there is no integrity within the Manhattan District Attorneys office, and don’t be fooled by the Conviction Integrity Unit! According to two former agents of this PR ploy. It’s essentially just a plaque on a door and utterly useless.


It’s important to realize just how broken our judicial system is, and how many lives are destroyed as a result.


Legal Aid NYC, didn’t open the case until a month prior to trial. We listened to four days of perjured testimony and never offered a defense. Judge Kevin McGrath was supposed to be on vacation that day and had metioned a quick end. We were in court Monday through Wednesday, broke for Thurday, and I hung on Friday.


We were here to extend into the following week with Monday bringing in two Sandy Hook families, a Newtown town official (who approved our proposal 21 December 2912) and a newly hired COO. I was refused by my defense attorney Jon Stonbely, and therefore denied a fair trial.


I had no defense and the four days of Perjury was left unchallenged. Which proved fatal for a proper appeal.


In 2012, with support from hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman and his Pershing Sq. Foundation, we believed we could honor Sandy Hook. We set forward to mirror Dunblane Centre and create Sandy Hook CenTer as tribute.


On Sandy Hooks first anniversary, we partnered with Hallmark and held a tree trimming event in Newtown. The problem arose when the in invites were sent out.. Ms. Shields’ believed it was a rouse to gain her attention- it wasn’t.


Apparently Ms. Shields lived just two blocks away for several years prior to my knowing. In fact, it was after a cover story of Architectural Digest and it being promoted on social media did I even know she lived just two blocks away. It was after that she was approached to assist us in Sandy Hook.

A disagreement ensued over a parking spot, and out of caution she made a report. Things only got out of hand after which I’m defense.

It’s not that Brooke is to blame for her vigilance- it’s the hypervigilance and her lying in court.


Sandy Hook is a legitimate reason for everyone to come together, we failed based on the corruption in the Manhattan DA’s office that led to Ms. Gregory’s departure within two weeks after a Suborn Perjury complaint was filed.


Why is Emmett Till timely, 55years later?

These abuses of power happen every day, and our public defenders are ill equipped to go against a prosecutor who will often engage in criminal conduct to WIN at any cost. This abuse of power cripples our entire judicial process and castrates the appellate courts in the process.


“During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the abused, and have opposed abusers.


I have fought against those who abuse their power, and I have fought for the voices silenced. I have cherished the ideal of a world of unity, and a society in which all persons will live together in harmony and in peace.


It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, My Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Official Complaint:
Brent Ferguson, New York State Bar.
Assistant District Attorney, City of New York

​
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.


The information contained in this document and it's attachments shall be considered an official Complaint to the State Bar of New York, and provides unequivocal proof of gross prosecutorial misconduct and criminal acts committed by Brent Ferguson, State Bar #

These violations include, but are not limited to the following:

• Fraud of the Courts
• Conspiracy
• NY State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 5-110 Performing the duty of a Member in Government Service
Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
Rule 5-220 Suppression of Evidence

• Violations of the New York State Bar Act
• Violations of the American Bar Association, Professional Rules of Conduct.
• Violations of Federal Civil Rights under Color of Law.

The State Bar is advised that this document is also provided to the New York State Grand Jury as supplemental information to the formal Public Corruption Complaint filed independently by a collaboration of Human Rights organizations, specifically naming Brent Ferguson, NY State Bar.

The State Bar is distinctly advised that the prosecutorial misconducts and criminal acts of Mr. Brent Ferguson detailed herein are not isolated incidents. They are part of a sustained pattern and course of misconduct, warrants criminal conviction, and necessitate permanent disbarment to protect the people of New York.

A substantial amount of supplemental documentation will be provided to the State Bar, the New York State Grand Jury, the Center for Prosecutorial Integrity, the Attorney General of New York, and other Human Rights Organizations investigating Brent Ferguson, New York State Bar.


BACKGROUND AND SYNOPSIS

"Contrary to defendant's contention, the "reasonable fear" and "no legitimate purpose" elements of the offense were established by the testimony of the complainant and additional eye-witnesses, who testified that defendant repeatedly appeared at and lingered around Shields' home; followed her when she left her house; ignored numerous warnings by family, security and the police to stop contacting her; parked near her home for days at a time and slept in his car; and sent her unwanted communications, including a letter with a shirtless photograph of himself and an email to her publicist in which defendant referenced an actress that had been murdered by a stalker. The court could rationally infer that defendant's conduct was designed to hound, frighten, intimidate and threaten (see People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 428 [2003])."
Mr. Ferguson not only mislead, but fabricated grossly. .

A prior complaint was made against former ADA Ms. Anjelcia Gregory for her role in the initial 2015 case. Within two weeks of the complaint presented to Kirkland & Ellis, Ms. Gregory was no longer an employed by them. .

Mr. Ferguson in the above brief, willfully and knowledgeably committed Fraud of the Courts.

"Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the courtmakes void the orders and judgments of that court."

1. There was no sleeping in the car, it was awaiting street cleaning.
2. The shirtless photograph was an inch x 3/4 inch picture used as logo for a personal correspondence to Dear Friend, to support Sandy Hook, and encourage a clear mission statement.
3. Letter sent to publicist was to preserve a relationship between myself and the agency dating back to 2002. To suggest Rebecca Schaefer as a threat was utterly irresponsible. Ms. Schaefer was shot and killed just two days after I arrived from NT to Los Angeles- on the same block. It scared me, and was a significant reason I quit acting after Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men.”


BACKGROUND.
In 2003, Mr. Chris Henchy and I met after a Broadway play. After introducing myself to him, he grabbed me , pulling me across the room and said I had to meet his wife, Brooke Shields personally. There had been a gift sent that she was said to be so in love with that she had told me point blank, 1. It was too nice to share, and 2. It would remain on her bed-room bureau. I was very pleased because throughout my life I had developed a sense of gratitude to the Shields after their stepping in and having my abuser prosecuted. Through Mrs. Shields' kindness, I was no longer of abuse, but a survivor..

After many kind words were exchanged, I gave a friendly man to man pat on his shoulder and said my good-byes.

There was no further communication since 2003 aside from my attending 3 or 4 Broadway shows..

In 2012, after my father had died things of his became more valuable to me. And in 2013 or so I stumbled upon an old gift Mrs. Teri Shields bestowed to me as a kindness.. The loss of a parent is tough, but the loss of a grandparent is especially tragic because this relationship ends when the grandchild is often quite young. Since I was given such a lavish gift of a heart shaped silver frame, I felt obliged to return it to its rightful owner, Brooke with a comment that I thought her eldest daughter would appreciate it more that I. At the time it seemed to be the right thing to do.

In 2014, I received a bulk mailing from Ms. Shields inviting me to several events to which she was to speak on behalf of a book she had previously published. During one event the mc was kind enough to ask if there were any questions, I put my hand up and we spoke of my 'paying it forward' and attributed my philanthropic work to her mother who was kind to a child a long time ago.' Brooke then asked if there was a question, and I just said no. I had only wanted to say thank you. She moved on and before I knew it I had said, yeah I do have a question after-all.. but someone had already begun to speak, and Brooke smiled at me, and I smiled back.

The next event was several hours away and was a book signing at Barnes and Noble. While I joined the line to have my book signed, I didn't solicit a conversation, but when Brooke saw me, she quickly apologized for not getting to me to ask my question. She took it upon herself to engage me, I might add.

In just a few months later, I would run into Ms. Shields in my neighborhood. For the record, Ms. Shields moved within 2blocks of me.. and to run into her in a total of 3 or 4 times over the course of many years seems expected- especially when Ms. Shields lives just two doors down from my pharmacy that I've been patronizing for over 20years.

The quantity and severity of the many criminal acts committed against me has been so expansive, so much so that it has drawn the attention of a number of Human Rights organizations, who have collaborated on a comprehensive investigation and have assisted in the filing of a formal public corruption complaint with the New York City Bar.

The evidence provided herein proves unequivocally that ADA Brent Ferguson of the Manhattan DA's office violated his oath of office, abused public trust, and made a mockery of our judicial system in her relentless pursuit of a criminal conviction.

I'd also like to add Mr. Ferguson is with no moral compass as a result of his arriving to the Manhattan District Attorneys office. Prior to his taking a position at the Manhattan DA’s office, Mr. Ferguson was a notable asset to Brennan Center for Justice, and thought to possess a great deal of integrity.

I'd like to also add that for close to two years, I was repeatedly asked to accept a disorderly conduct. With advise from Assemblyman O'Donnell, I was told not to accept if I was innocent. I was also advised that as long I was fighting a celebrity I would not win with Cy Vance as District Attorney. But, at that point the only thing that was important was the lesson I’d be instilling upon my little boy, 'perjury isn't an option even if it will afford you your freedom.'

Specifically, the facts and evidence herein establish:

Notably, Mr. Ferguson was the Attorney on record who took this case to NY Apelate Court. Throughout his brief, he constantly contradicted himself and flat out fabricated several truths. The biggest travesty was his flat out misrepresentation of facts.

Ms. Anjelica Gregory was already reported for her oath violations and within weeks of my filing was no longer employed by Kirkland & Ellis. Mr. Ferguson’s role herein was essentially his committing Fraud of the Courts.

“Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.”

1. Ms. ADA Anjelica Gregory filed criminal charges on behalf of Ms. Brooke Shields even though insufficient probable cause existed.

The assumption of criminal behavior was based on the discovery from an extortion/ consumer site called Rip Off Report. This site defamed me in its accusations of being a child predator and running an illegal non profit. In 2010, thanks to Detective Paul Arroyo, these reviews were proven false. Yet, they remained because reports can not be removed. The only option was to then pay a $5,000- $100,000 service fee to have the reports 'buried.'

1. Ms. Angelica Gregory then committed fraud to procure this deficiency by fabricating a false accusation of a crime (Ms. Shields made up a history of events that never took place, lied about situations, and even Ms. Shields' husband lied in court stating he had only one encounter with me despite documentation the prosecution released that clearly contradicted both Ms. Shields and her husband Chris Henchy.) to convince the judge that I should have reasonably known that Ms. Shields was fearful. All the while making up dots... a how to do to speak that was necessary to make a stalker out of a guy who's soul existence for the past 25 years was to eradicate abuse, and to stop the bullying- both I hold responsible for all the gun/school violence. Essentially, fabricate a skillfully crafted scenario to procure a wrongful conviction.
2. Subsequent to fabricating her false accusations, Ms. Gregory had met with Ms. Shields dozens of times, as said in court, over the previous two years to create her testimony. The facts herein prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ms. Gregory conspired with and coached Ms. Shields to elicit perjured testimony. They essentially re-wrote history which again contradicted a paid for security detailed 'Rinaldi' file. In addition, they trolled my social media accounts and created their own narratives. For example, someone had made a comment discrediting Ms. Shields and came to her defense on social media. ​

I could go on and on, but trust me when I say everything out of Ms Shields and Mr. Henchy's mouths were lies. To prove this any and all my actions and activities were/ are transparent on-line connected with evidentiary proof of no wrong-doing.


FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

www.TheSandyHookKidsCenter.com
​www.JohnMRinaldi.com

ADA Anjelica Gregory. Suborned Perjury.
ADA Brent Ferguson lied to Honorable Leslie E. Stein.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT 
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ. 

Justice Doris Ling-Cohan 
Justice Matthew Cooper
Justice Carol Edmead

Sandy Hook was and always will be "a legitimate purpose."

Julianne Moore thought so, and pledged her support just a day after Sandy Hook.
Ricky Martin thought so, and kissed me.
Sarah Jessica Parker was asked to do a PSA for ABC's The View.

THEREFORE there couldn't possibly be any

"reasonable fear."

​




​People v Rinaldi (John) Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Rinaldi (John) 2018 NY Slip Op 50562(U) Decided on April 17, 2018 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. 

Decided on April 17, 2018 
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT 
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ. 
570473/16 

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 

against

John Rinaldi, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered June 17, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of stalking in the fourth degree (two counts), harassment in the first degree, and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.
Per Curiam.
Judgment of conviction (Kevin B. McGrath, J.), rendered June 17, 2016, affirmed. 
The verdict convicting defendant of two counts of fourth degree stalking (see Penal Law § 120.45[1],[2]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. Ample evidence supported the conclusion that defendant engaged in a course of conduct from November 2013 through May 2015 that was reasonably likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health or safety of the complainant, actress Brooke Shields (see People v Polanco, 57 Misc 3d 140[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51348[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]).
Contrary to defendant's contention, the "reasonable fear" and "no legitimate purpose" elements of the offense were established by the testimony of the complainant and additional eye-witnesses, who testified that defendant repeatedly appeared at and lingered around Shields' home; followed her when she left her house; ignored numerous warnings by family, security and the police to stop contacting her; parked near her home for days at a time and slept in his car; and sent her unwanted communications, including a letter with a shirtless photograph of himself and an email to her publicist in which defendant referenced an actress that had been murdered by a stalker. The court could rationally infer that defendant's conduct was designed to hound, frighten, intimidate and threaten (see People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 428 [2003]).
There was also a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the court could have determined that defendant's guilt of harassment in the first degree (Penal Law § [*2]240.25) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[3]) was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349).
Defendant's remaining arguments, to the extent preserved for appellate review, have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: April 17, 2018 

• Find a Lawyer


• Ask a Lawyer 
• Research the Law


• Law Schools


• Laws & Regs


• Newsletters


• Legal Marketing








































• ​

    © 2018 JustiaLegal Portal Company Help Terms of Service Privacy Policy Marketing So

Hello,


My name is Melissa Howard and I operate stopsuicide.info, which supports my mission to end suicide.


As part of that mission, I'm writing articles (and a book!) on emotional wellness - in particular some of the warning signs that indicate it's time to seek help.


May I send you an emotional wellness article for your blog? I’m hoping my writing can guide others to feeling "well enough” and to understand when they need to ask for help.


Thank you for your consideration - your site looks great and I’d love the opportunity to write something for you!


In Wellness,
Melissa Howard
melissa@stopsuicide.info
Head of Prevention Outreach


StopSuicide.info




You may.


But first, may I ask you a question. Last week Mark Salling, Puck from Fox TV’s Gkee, took his life. It’s understandable given the severity of his mental incapacity given his offensive predilections. However, I believe all deviants- be it pedophilia, rapists, abusers/harassers, and stalkers are all predators. Their mere being is a mortal imposition, and sadly death would be most welcomed. To harm another, be it mentally or physically defies any logic of freedom.


Having been falsely accused simply for a means of policing, the accused (wrongful accused) will always be a predator.


Why then go on??

​John.

Subornation of perjury
In American law and in Scots law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury, the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written. The term subornation of perjury further describes the circumstance wherein an attorney at law causes a client to lie under oath or allows another party to lie under oath.[1][2]
In American federal law, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1622 provides:
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In California law, per the State bar Code,[3] the subornation of perjury constitutes an act of "moral turpitude" on the part of the attorney, and thus is cause for his or her disbarment, or for the suspension of his or her license to practice law.[4]
In legal practice, the condition of suborning perjury applies to a lawyer who presents either testimony or an affidavit, or both, either to a judge or to a jury, which the attorney knows to be materially false, and not factual. In civil lawand in criminal law, the attorney’s knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what an attorney would reasonably have believed in the circumstances of the matter discussed in the testimony. Hence, the attorney cannot be wilfully blind to the fact that his or her witness is giving false, perjurious testimony.
Moreover, an attorney who actively encourages a witness to give false testimony is suborning perjury, which is a crime punished either with formal disciplinary action, disbarment, or jail, or a combination thereof. Likewise, a false statement by an attorney in court also is a crime similar to subornation of perjury, and is punished accordingly. Hence, in the professional conduct of an attorney at law, there is a fine delineation between assisting a witness to recall occurred events and encouraging him or her to give materially false testimony. The practice of ″horse shedding the witness″ (rehearsing testimony) is an example of such perjurious criminal conduct by an attorney, which is depicted in the true-crime novel Anatomy of a Murder (1958), by Robert Traver, and in the eponymous film (Otto Preminger, 1959), about a rape-and-murder case wherein are explored the ethical and legal problems inherent to the subornation of perjury.[5][6][7]

​

Jurisprudence
The Innocence Deniers

When convictions are clearly wrong, these prosecutors don’t just hinder justice—they actively work against it.

January 10 2018 4:30 PM

Davontae Sanford was 14 years old when he confessed to murdering four people in a drug house on Detroit’s East Side. Left alone with detectives in a late-night interrogation, Sanford says he broke down after being told he could go home if he gave them “something.” On the advice of a lawyer whose license was later suspended for misconduct, Sanders pleaded guilty in the middle of his March 2008 trial and received a sentence of 39 to 92 years in prison.

Sixteen days after Sanford was sentenced, a hit man named Vincent Smothers told the police he had carried out 12 contract killings, including the four Sanford had pleaded guilty to committing. Smothers explained that he’d worked with an accomplice, Ernest Davis, and he provided a wealth of corroborating details to back up his account. Smothers told police where they could find one of the weapons used in the murders; the gun was recovered and ballistics matched it to the crime scene. He also told the police he had used a different gun in several of the other murders, which ballistics tests confirmed. Once Smothers’ confession was corroborated, it was clear Sanford was innocent. Smothers made this point explicitly in an 2015 affidavit, emphasizing that Sanford hadn’t been involved in the crimes “in any way.”

But Smothers and Davis were never charged. Neither was Leroy Payne, the man Smothers alleged had paid him to commit the murders. (Through his attorney, Payne has denied any involvement.) Instead, Smothers pleaded guilty to the other eight killings. Davis, who was never prosecuted, was convicted of an unrelated felony in 2013 and could be released from prison as early as July. Payne, who remains a free man, left Detroit in 2016. His whereabouts are unknown.

Davontae Sanford, meanwhile, remained behind bars, locked up for crimes he very clearly didn’t commit.

Police failed to turn over all the relevant information in Smothers’ confession to Sanford’s legal team, as the law required them to do. When that information was leaked in 2009, Sanford’s attorneys sought to reverse his conviction on the basis of actual innocence. Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy fought back, opposing the motion all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court. In 2014, the court sided with Worthy, ruling that actual innocence was not a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea. Sanford would remain in prison for another two years.

In an adversarial legal system, it’s natural to presume that prosecutors and defense attorneys are driven by the same goal: to win. They aren’t. In Berger v. United States, decided in 1935, the Supreme Court famously declared that the prosecution’s ultimate goal “is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” A prosecutor, the court wrote, “is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.”

Embracing this “twofold aim” is at the core of a prosecutor’s work. The government brings cases it believes are supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A victory at trial proves them right. But if new evidence is uncovered showing the conviction was error-ridden to the point of unreliability, the imperative that “justice shall be done” requires prosecutors to admit they were wrong. This responsibility exists even if a defendant may be guilty—if, for example, crucial evidence was obtained by illegal means. The moral imperative underpinning this precept, though, is brought into sharpest relief when it appears the defendant is actually innocent.

Many prosecutors accept this responsibility and, when proven wrong, ask the judge to dismiss a case or settle by way of a plea bargain. But too many do not. Indeed, there is a class of prosecutors that might fairly be called innocence deniers.
These prosecutors do not “do justice” as the Supreme Court defines it. Instead, they delay justice and in some cases actively work against it. When a prisoner is exonerated by a lower court, these prosecutors double and triple down, filing appeal after appeal. Or they indict and prosecute the exoneree all over again, sometimes under a wildly different theory at the expense of time and resources that should be used to pursue the crime’s actual perpetrator. They may also threaten endless legal challenges to wring “no contest” pleas from innocent prisoners in exchange for time-served sentences. The prisoners, desperate to be free, accept these Faustian bargains, which brand them convicts for life and allow prosecutors to proclaim their guilt and the state to deny them compensation. Some prosecutors are so committed to adhering to the original mistake that they fail to prosecute the actual perpetrators, even when there is evidence to convict them.

Innocence deniers are a diverse group: male and female, young and old, white and people of color. They are Democrats and Republicans from red, blue, and purple states. What they have in common is their insistence—in the face of all evidence to the contrary—that wrongfully convicted people are in fact guilty.

Simply opposing an exoneration effort does not make a prosecutor an innocence denier. Some exoneration claims are bogus and others are murky, requiring rigorous legal testing to be proven conclusively. Increasingly, conscientious prosecutors are working collaboratively with defense attorneys to reinvestigate innocence claims, keeping an open mind and doing the right thing in the end. Innocence-denying prosecutors are different. The cases collected here are extreme, either because the prosecutor in question has a pattern of reflexively denying innocence or because, even in a single case, the evidence of innocence is so manifest as to make the fight against it profoundly misguided.

In the past quarter-century, the work of dogged attorneys and advances in forensic science have exonerated more than 2,150 men and women, 161 of those from death row. The Innocence Project, a New York–based nonprofit founded by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld in 1992, has freed more than 200 people and spurred the creation of numerous smaller organizations around the country devoted to the same mission. (From 2012–2015, I was the director of the Loyola Law School Project for the Innocent in Los Angeles.) By some estimates there are tens of thousands more wrongfully convicted prisoners languishing behind bars. Nevertheless, some prosecutors—the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system—refuse to correct life-altering errors. (You can read more about 17 such cases here.) If we are committed to fostering a justice system that is truly just, it is imperative to call out these innocence deniers and hold them to account.

Kym Worthy, a Democrat and the first black woman or man to serve as Wayne County’s lead prosecutor, first took office in 2004 and coasted to re-election for a fourth term in November 2016. The former circuit court judge has a national reputation as a trailblazing progressive—last April, Essence named her to its “Woke 100 List” to honor her efforts “to achieve equality for people of color.” Worthy’s office, however, has repeatedly refused to admit error in cases like Davontae Sanford’s, where there is compelling evidence of actual innocence.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s adverse ruling in 2014 wasn’t the end of the line for Sanford. The court ruled against him on technical grounds and noted that there was nothing to prevent his legal team from filing a post-conviction motion for relief from the judgment, rather than making a direct challenge to his guilty plea. In 2015, attorneys for Sanford, who is black, did just that, and the Michigan State Police began to re-investigate the case. One year later, the police issued a 117-page report detailing compelling evidence that Smothers and Davis were guilty; that Sanford was innocent; and that Detroit’s then deputy police chief, James Tolbert, had lied to convict Sanford. It was at that point, nine yearsinto Sanford’s incarceration, that Worthy finally agreed to his release—but only on account of Tolbert’s misconduct. She continues to insist that Sanford is guilty, pointing to his discredited confession. The state police recommended bringing perjury charges against Tolbert and murder charges against Smothers and Davis. Worthy declined in all three cases.
In July 2017 Sanford filed a civil suit under Michigan’s Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act, and only four months later the state attorney general conceded that Sanford was innocent, had been wrongfully convicted, and was entitled to compensation, but noted that Worthy’s office “has been consulted and disagrees.” Julie Hurwitz, one of the attorneys who represents Sanford, told me she was “surprised” that the state acquiesced so readily but that given the crush of media attention the case has received, “the attorney general’s office probably knew that fighting this would be a political bombshell.” On Dec. 21, a judge awarded Sanford $408,356.16.

In reference to her office’s handling of Sanford’s case, Worthy has said, “I don’t know what we could have done differently.”

David Moran, director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, has tangled with Worthy in a half-dozen cases in which he says her office has fought his efforts to free clients. Moran, who helped lead the fight to exonerate Sanford alongside the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, also battled the Wayne County prosecutor in the case of Lamarr Monson, who was convicted in the 1996 murder of a 12-year-old girl and sentenced to 30 to 50 years in prison. Monson, who like Sanford is black, claimed he’d been tricked into signing a false confession stating that he’d stabbed the victim to death.
Nearly 20 years after the murder in question, Moran and his students examined the object that the medical examiner had identified as the likely murder weapon: a ceramic toilet lid used to bludgeon the victim over the head. The lid was covered with bloody fingerprints, which had never been tested. The Michigan State Police found that all the fingerprints matched a man named Robert Lewis, who was living in the same building as the victim at the time of the murder.
During a four-month-long evidentiary hearing in late 2016, the Michigan Innocence Clinic presented the fingerprint evidence and called Lewis’ then live-in girlfriend Shellena Bentley as a witness. Bentley testified that Lewis came back to her apartment on the night of the murder “frantic” with “blood on him; it was dripping off his fingernails.” David McCreedy, the assistant prosecutor assigned by Worthy to fight the case, didn’t find this account convincing. He explained that Lewis might have wandered by the apartment while the building manager was on the phone with 911, then moved the toilet tank out of the way to help the paramedics. Moran told me that he responded: “There might be 12 gullible citizens that would buy that, but that’s why we need a new trial: to see if the state can find them.”

The judge granted Monson a new trial; he was subsequently released on bond. Worthy, who agreed to be interviewed about Monson’s case—she declined to comment on Devontae Sanford’s, citing ongoing litigation—told me her office sought to delay the retrial so it could conduct an additional investigation. Two homicide investigators were dispatched to interview Lewis, who denied committing the murder. “His statements were consistent with the evidence that was available in the case,” Worthy says, despite Lewis’ fingerprints being all over the bloody toilet lid, including around the edges, Moran says, suggesting that he gripped it. (Worthy’s deputies do not concede that the toilet tank was the murder weapon; one told me that the victim’s “head could have been slammed against the back of the bathtub,” causing the fatal injury.)
In August, a few weeks before Monson’s retrial, the prosecution dismissed the case. In a public statement, Worthy said Monson had lived with the 12-year-old victim, that he’d had sex with her, and that he’d demanded that she sell drugs for him. The decision to drop the charges against Monson, Worthy said, was not due to a belief in his innocence, but instead due to “the destruction of evidence and the possible coercive conduct of the then-homicide inspector in obtaining statements from the defendant.” Her office, she said, would not be charging Robert Lewis with the murder. Lewis is still free.

Moran says Worthy’s charge that Monson had sex with the 12-year-old victim is “false and disturbing,” adding that “it is unethical for a prosecutor, upon dismissing charges against a defendant, to then publicly defame that defendant.” His client, he says, emphatically denies that any sexual contact occurred. Asked to respond, Worthy cited Monson’s statements to the police—the same statements she has admitted were possibly coerced in a manner that “supports Monson’s defense of a false confession.”

Worthy did tell me, however, that her office is in the process of launching a standalone unit to review possible wrongful convictions. That group will be headed up by Valerie Newman, a longtime attorney at the Michigan State Appellate Defender Office, which represented Sanford before the Michigan Innocence Clinic took over his case. Worthy says that project has been in the works for some time, but became possible only after she obtained funding from the Wayne County Commission.

Moran reacted to the news with cautious optimism, saying, “I hope that the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office is changing its attitude and will seriously consider these cases.” He has cases lined up to present to the unit as soon as it opens for business.

In June 2016, the California Innocence Project filed a vindictive prosecution motion, arguing that the retrial of William Richards was “unconscionable.” A month earlier, the California Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that Richards’ conviction for the 1993 murder of his wife Pamela Richards should be overturned, as it had been based on false evidence. Shortly thereafter, San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos announced his office would prosecute Richards for a fifth time. “There was no way that they had any legitimate purpose in prosecuting him,” says Jan Stiglitz, co-director of the California Innocence Project. “They would have to be deluded to believe he was still guilty.”
Ramos is a prosecutor with a national profile. A Southern California Republican, he is the board chairman of the National District Attorneys Association, a powerful group of more than 4,000 prosecutors that meets regularly with the Department of Justice to offer its views on criminal justice policy. The son of Mexican immigrants, he is the first Hispanic district attorney for San Bernardino County, a jurisdiction with a population of more than 2 million people. First elected in 2002, Ramos is now campaigning for his fifth term. For the majority of his 15 years in office, he has fought the release of a man who was demonstrably innocent. Ramos isn’t known for serially denying innocence claims. The case of William Richards, however, is a shocking example of how prosecutors can pursue a single individual with no regard for logic or reason.

Pamela Richards was murdered in gruesome fashion. Although she was killed by manual strangulation, she’d also been horribly beaten. Pieces of her skull were lying beside her body, and a paving stone and cinder block found nearby were covered with blood and matted hair. Police immediately focused their suspicion on her husband. The couple was having financial problems, and Pamela, who was having an affair, had announced she was leaving him.
Nevertheless, the evidence against William Richards was weak. He had no criminal record and no history of violence. The night of the murder, he clocked out from work at 11:03 p.m., then drove 45 miles to get home. Even assuming he exceeded the speed limit by 20 miles per hour, police estimated Richards couldn’t have arrived home before 11:47 p.m. That would’ve given him 11 minutes to brutalize his wife before he called 911 at 11:58 p.m. to report she was dead.

Richards, who is white, was indicted under Ramos’ predecessor, Dennis Stout, and tried four times by a prosecutor named Michael Risley. Two juries were unable to reach a verdict, and the judge in the third case declared a mistrial. At the fourth trial, Risley introduced new expert testimony: A dentist, Norman Sperber, told the jury a bite mark photographed on Pamela’s arm was consistent with William’s teeth, and that the bite mark was so unusual as to be found in just 1 to 2 percent of the population. William Richards was sentenced to life in prison in 1997.

In 2003, Stiglitz and Justin Brooks, the co-founders of the California Innocence Project, filed a motion for DNA testing on the paving stone and cinder block found near Pamela’s body. They also sought DNA testing on a hair found underneath her nails. When the results finally came back in 2007, they excluded William. A year later, the dentist recanted his testimony, stating he had “no degree of certainty” about his earlier conclusion and adding that, with regard to William, “I have essentially ruled him out.” In 2009, a trial judge overturned William Richards’ conviction, finding that “the entire prosecution case has been undermined” with evidence that “points unerringly to innocence.” Ramos appealed the judge’s order. Another six years of legal dueling followed before the state’s highest court agreed that William Richards’ conviction should be thrown out.

Stiglitz was shocked when he learned in 2016 that Ramos intended to prosecute Richards for a fifth time. The DNA pointed to someone else, the recanted bite-mark testimony had been tossed, the timeline made no sense, and there was no other evidence. But a trial date had been set, and Ramos’ office opposed Richards’ release—he had been transferred to jail from state prison while he awaited trial—demanding a $100,000 bond. The judge declined, instead letting Richards out on his own signature.

Eight days after Stiglitz and his colleagues filed their vindictive prosecution motion, Ramos’ office finally dismissed the murder charge while maintaining that no final decision had been made. Ramos’ spokesperson, Christopher Lee, wrote in an email to the Intercept that more time was needed to look at “the defense’s new evidence.” The case has never been refiled.

Richards now lives with a former California Innocence Project attorney and her family. He developed prostate cancer while in custody that went untreated and, his lawyers say, is now incurable. Richards has filed a civil right lawsuit against the County of San Bernardino and six sheriff’s deputies, seeking unspecified damages for actions that were done “deliberately, purposefully, knowingly and/or with deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard” for the truth. Trial is set for October 2018. The San Bernardino district attorney’s office declined to make Ramos or Risley available for comment, citing Richards’ ongoing lawsuit.

Leon Cannizzaro has been known to fight exoneration cases for years until every appellate option has been exhausted. Local prosecutors have tremendous power, and the district attorney for Louisiana’s Orleans Parish uses every tool in his arsenal to reject the innocence of exonerees, and to threaten the freedom and professional reputations of those fighting on behalf of those who say they were wrongfully convicted. Cannizzaro’s office has gone after defendants’ lawyers and investigators in court by accusing them of committing crimes to help their clients, and the office has discouraged witnesses from helping to exonerate wrongly convicted people, charging them with perjury when they recant false trial testimony. It’s not just the wrongly convicted who suffer under this regime: By spending resources rejecting exonerations instead of searching for the real perpetrators, Cannizzaro has prevented victims from getting the justice they deserve.

Consider the case of Jerome Morgan, who was 18 when he was convicted of the 1993 shooting death of a fellow teenager. The victim, Clarence Landry III, died after shots were fired at a Sweet 16 party in a hotel ballroom. Hakim Shabazz and another teenager were wounded, but survived. The gunman immediately fled the scene; he was chased unsuccessfully by Landry’s best friend, Kevin Johnson. (Morgan, Landry, and the witnesses are all black.)

Johnson ruled out Morgan when he was shown a photo array just days after the crime. Three months later, Shabazz identified Morgan as the shooter, and four months after that Landry’s mother brought Johnson back to the police station. At that point, Johnson changed his story and identified Morgan as the gunman. Based on these two identifications, Morgan was convicted of second-degree murder. In 1994, a judge sentenced Morgan “to serve his natural life at hard labor in the Department of Corrections.”

In 2013, after Shabazz and Johnson recanted their identifications of Jerome Morgan (in 2011 and 2012), Morgan’s lawyers succeeded in getting a hearing before a trial judge to determine whether Morgan’s conviction should be thrown out. At the hearing, Shabazz said he hadn’t known the identity of the gunman but that a detective told him “Jerome shot you.” Johnson described the immense pressure he felt when Landry’s mother brought him to the police station. He’d set aside Morgan’s photograph only to have the picture put back in front of him and have the detective ask again, “You sure this is not the guy?” Finally, he agreed to identify Morgan as the killer.

Morgan’s lawyers also uncovered evidence that the ballroom had been sealed within minutes of the shooting and that Morgan had been locked inside, making it impossible that he was the fleeing gunman. Prosecutors had that evidence all along, but never turned it over to the defense.
A judge overturned Morgan’s conviction in 2014. At that point, he’d served 20 years. After he was unsuccessful in opposing Morgan’s release on bail, Cannizzaro went to the intermediate appellate court seeking to reinstate his conviction. When that effort failed, he appealed again, this time to the state’s highest court. He also indicted Shabazz and Johnson for perjury, and then argued that his office should be allowed to introduce Shabazz and Johnson’s recanted trial testimonies, as neither man would agree to take the stand at Morgan’s retrial given the perjury indictments hanging over their heads. The Louisiana Supreme Court shut Cannizzaro down again, holding that “the state may not rely on these discredited and unreliable identifications.”
Cannizzaro, a white Democrat who’s been the Orleans Parish district attorney since 2008, vowed to press on. In the weeks leading up to the retrial, prosecutor Donna Andrieu accused Morgan’s attorneys, Emily Maw and Kristin Wenstrom, of coercing false recantations from Shabazz and Johnson and asked that they be removed as Morgan’s counsel so the state could call them as witnesses. The judge, incredulous that Andrieu would accuse the defense attorneys of “suborning perjury,” rebuffed her request as “outrageous.”
In May 2016, two weeks before Morgan’s retrial, Cannizzaro’s office dismissed the charges against him, saying the high court’s ruling had tied its hands. Cannizzaro professed deep sorrow for the victim’s family. “What is most disappointing to me about this entire incident,” he said, “is that, as [the victim’s mother] lays in bed dying of cancer, the justice for which she worked so hard to obtain is ripped from her fingers and she is helpless to stop it.” Maw called Cannizzaro’s statement “dishonest and preposterous.” The attorney had stayed in close touch with Landry’s parents throughout the case. “They fully supported our efforts and have no desire to see an innocent man in prison,” she told me.

Clarence Landry’s killer has never been found. Maw says that, to her knowledge, no one is looking for him. Instead, Cannizzaro, who declined to comment for this story, went ahead with the perjury prosecutions against Shabazz and Johnson. In January, a judge acquitted both men.

Worthy, Ramos, and Cannizzaro may seem extreme, but they have plenty of company. University of Michigan Law professor Samuel Gross, co-founder of the nonprofit National Registry of Exonerations, says “there are a lot of these cases.” Gross and his colleagues have tracked every known exoneration from 1989 through the present day. At Slate’s request, they provided a list of an additional 16 cases of innocence denying beyond the ones described at length in this article. “We see them all the time,” Gross says.

As Davontae Sanford’s case demonstrates, innocence denying means the real criminals go unpunished, posing a threat to public safety. According to the Innocence Project, 353 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989. The group has identified 152 actual perpetrators in those cases who went on to commit “150 additional violent crimes,” including rape and murder.
The best-known example of this phenomenon is the case of Michael Morton, a Texan who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife in 1987. At trial, prosecutors withheld crucial exculpatory evidence. After his conviction, they fought Morton’s release tooth and nail, even though DNA evidence found on a bandana near the crime scene pointed to Mark Alan Norwood as the real killer. Norwood had gone on to rape and kill another woman in a nearly identical manner two years after Morton was sent to prison.

The lead prosecutor, Ken Anderson—who became a district court judge after securing Morton’s conviction—was criminally charged with evidence tampering and lying to the judge at Morton’s preliminary hearing, and eventually pleaded no contest to felony charges of criminal contempt. He has been barred from practicing law. But the prosecution of Anderson is an outlier. Worthy, Ramos, and Cannizzaro have never been sanctioned. Instead, they have each coasted to re-election while racking up accolades and awards.

If innocence denying rarely carries negative consequences, is the converse true? Do prosecutors who do everything in their power to free wrongfully convicted people stand to lose elected office and lose face because they’re seen as weak? In a word, no. Consider the story of Thomas Haynesworth, Michael Herring, and Ken Cuccinelli.
Haynesworth, a black teenager, was convicted in 1984 of raping three white women in Richmond. In back-to-back-to-back trials, all three women identified Haynesworth as their attacker. In 2009, Haynesworth’s attorneys got approval to test the DNA from a rape kit in one of the cases. That DNA matched a man named Leon Davis, who’d been convicted of sexually assaulting more than a dozen women. Those crimes had been committed after Haynesworth was arrested, in the same city or adjoining counties, and in a manner strikingly similar to the modus operandi attributed to Haynesworth.

Haynesworth was exonerated in that case, but he remained incarcerated for the two other rapes—and in those cases the evidence had been destroyed, leaving no possibility for DNA testing. Haynesworth’s advocates turned to Richmond City Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring for help.

Herring, who is black, was initially skeptical, but he became convinced of Haynesworth’s innocence. He then approached Cuccinelli, who was Virginia’s attorney general at the time. With his deputy, Alice Armstrong, Cuccinelli put together six-foot-high charts analyzing the evidence in the cases involving Haynesworth. They then added more charts for the multiple cases in which Davis had been convicted. It quickly became clear that this was not a question of glancing similarities: The geographic clusters, the details of the physical violence, and even the rapist’s wording of his threats to the victims formed an unmistakable pattern. Haynesworth, Cuccinelli believed, had spent nearly three decades in prison for Davis’ crimes.

In December 2010, Cuccinelli—a white Republican who is famous for his unflinchingly conservative positions—approached Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and lobbied for Haynesworth to be pardoned. The attorney general then took a highly unusual step. Rather than opposing Haynesworth’s petition for a writ of actual innocence in the Virginia Court of Appeals, he and Herring joined with Haynesworth’s lawyers in asking the justices to grant it.
During oral arguments in a packed courtroom, Cuccinelli was asked how he could sanction undoing the verdicts of two separate juries when the victims stood by their identifications. “My job is not to defend convictions, it’s to defend justice,” he explained to me.

Haynesworth ultimately prevailed by the narrowest of margins, with the court of appeals ruling 6–4 in his favor. Cuccinelli, now the president for the Senate Conservatives Fund, calls Haynesworth’s exoneration “the professional accomplishment I am most proud of.” Herring, who remains the commonwealth attorney for Richmond City, easily won re-election. In 2016, he received an award from the Virginia State Bar for his work in supporting the successful petition to pardon another man, Michael Kenneth McAlister.

When Kym Worthy says she plans to devote an entire unit to investigating post-conviction innocence claims, she is following in the footsteps of other district attorneys. Perhaps the best known of these units was run by Ken Thompson, the first black man or woman elected as the district attorney of Brooklyn, New York. Thompson, who took office in 2013, served only three years before dying of cancer in October 2016. But in that short time, he built up a remarkable record. In its first year, the conviction review unit freed 10 people. At the time of Thompson’s death, the total stood at 23. (After Thompson’s death, Eric Gonzalez became the acting district attorney. Gonzalez, who just won election for his full first term, had been endorsed by the New York Times, which noted that he “took the lead” in making the conviction review unit a success.)
Sharen Wilson, the top prosecutor for Tarrant County, Texas, is following the same model. Wilson, a white Republican who took office in January 2015, hired a widely respected defense attorney from a neighboring county to review questionable convictions. Recently, the Tarrant County Conviction Integrity Unit cooperated with the Innocence Project in reinvestigating the case of John Earl Nolley. That reinvestigation turned up a bloody palm print that did not match Nolley and evidence that the jailhouse informant who testified against Nolley had lied. After Wilson agreed the conviction was tainted, a state court judge overturned the conviction, and Nolley was released on bond in May 2016. The case is currently pending in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which will determine whether to uphold the trial court’s conclusion and Wilson’s recommendation.

On her website, Wilson describes herself as “putting victims first” with her commitment to “aggressively prosecute the most dangerous criminals.” She says vacating Nolley’s conviction and releasing him on bond was the right decision. “Faith in God leads me to believe that we have a system that is made up of people, and people make mistakes,” she told me.
There are no particular credentials that guarantee that a prosecutor will do the right thing. Prosecutors who embrace their role to “seek justice” must be willing to tell the truth no matter the consequences, and they need to have the gumption to fess up when they make a mistake. These are basic lessons that are well understood by an average fourth grader. Why is it so hard for so many of our top law enforcement officials to take them to heart?

Anderson Cooper,
Sandy Hook Memorial Bear,
John Rinaldi.
​Founder and Chief Executive Director of NYS 501c3 Kathy Rinaldi Hope/
​Sandy Hook CenTer.

@ManhattanDA
DAVID M. COHN
BRENT FERGUSON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Of Counsel
To be argued by
BRENT FERGUSON

No matter how u spin it, a 1/2yrs offered slap on the wrist, and then ‘Stack’ it to
Stalking = Malicious Prosecution.

I lived in the same city as Brooke since ‘89. There was never an issue until Sandy Hook.

If she didn’t want to support Gun Reform, she could’ve said no- she didn’t have to commit perjury.

thanks you Hallmark,

the above picture was taken at the original Sandy Hook memorial on the anniversary of the worst assault on our children this nation had ever faced. It’s also the place where I acted as a first responder from 12/21/12 until the memorial came down 01/04/13.

This tree houses the 26 original/1 of a kind ornaments made on our behalf and honors each life lost at Sandy Hook in Newtown, CT each year on its anniversary.

Invites were here sent out to half a dozen of our super- hero neighbors. Brooke was the only one to take offense.

Thank You,
Ricky Martin,
Julianne Moore,
Liv Tyler,
Sarah Jessica Parker,
Matthew Broderick,
Hugh Jackman,
Anderson Cooper.

If Brooke didn’t want to attend, she could have just said no.

Abusive Personality Types who do NOT want u2
have a voice will:
subdue it,
silence it,
quash it.


Often by
Falsely Claiming:
#stalking
#abuse
#bullying,
Often threatening legal/police action because another DARES 2:
disagree
or oppose.


#coercivecontrol


#AbuseOfPower Dsn’t Discriminate.
Accrdng2 CDC,
Ea. Yr 7.5 M
PEOPLE CHRGD W/
HRSSMNT/ASSAULT.


664,500 PPL found
NOT GUILTY attributed
2Perjured Testimony.


11.6% CLEARED.
ITS ESTIMATED THAT ROUGHLY 1/4 OF ALL CASES of ABUSE BROUGHT 4
POWER/ CONTROL/$.

To be argued by
DAVID BERNSTEIN
TIME REQUESTED: 10 MINUTES
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Term -- First Department
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent,
- against -
JOHN RINALDI,
Defendant-Appellant.
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
New York County Docket No. 2015NY030419
DAVID BERNSTEIN
Of Counsel
ROBERT S. DEAN
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant CENTER FOR APPELLATE LITIGATION 120 Wall Street -- 28th Fl.
New York, NY 10005 dbernstein@cfal.org
(212) 577-2523, Ext. 510
Fax: (212) 577-2535

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 5531. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 QUESTION PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION. .............................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Opening Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 TheBackground. .....................................3 The Incidents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Social Media Evidence.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trial Order of Dismissal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 TheDefenseCase. ........................................21 Summations. .............................................21 Verdict and Sentence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE THAT MR. RINALDI ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT HAD NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THAT HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT WELCOME, THAT HE INTENDED TO HARASS THE COMPLAINANT, OR THAT THE COMPLAINANT REASONABLY EXPERIENCED OR FEARED MATERIAL HARM OR FEARED PHYSICAL INJURY. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV; N.Y. CONST. ART. I, § 6.. . . . . . . . . 23
i

A. The Evidence Was Insufficient to Prove That Mr. Rinaldi Intentionally Engaged in a Course of Conduct With No Legitimate Purpose, That He Did So to Harass or Annoy Ms. Shields, or That She Suffered a Reasonable Fear of Material Harm or Physical Injury, or That She Experienced Material Harm.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. The Stalking Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Course of Conduct With No Legitimate Purpose.28
The “Warnings”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Conduct Following the “Warnings”– The Lone Personal Interaction and the Walk-By. . . . . . . . . 31
Conduct Following the “Warnings”– Social Media Speech. .................................33
Conduct Preceding the Warnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Fear of Material Harm Under Penal Law § 120.45(1). ...............................39
Stalking Under Penal Law § 120.45(2). . . . . . . . . 40 2. Harassment in the First and Second Degree. . . . . . . 41 B. The Verdicts Were Against the Weight of the Evidence.. . 44 CONCLUSION. ...............................................50
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DISMISSED... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATE CASES
People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490 (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26 People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296 (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 People v. Burwell, 53 N.Y.2d 849 (1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 49 People v. Corichi, 195 Misc.2d 518 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2003).. . . . . . . . . 43 People v. Coveny, 50 Misc.3d 1 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2015).. . . . . . . . . . . . 42 People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 People v. Demisse, 24 A.D.3d 118 (1st Dept. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47 (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 People v. Dozier, 50 A.D.3d 589 (1st Dept. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 People v. Harris, 36 Misc.3d 613 (N.Y. County Crim. Ct., 2012).. . . . . . . . . 34 People v. Lieberman, 3 N.Y.2d 649 (1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633 (2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 People v. Santos, 38 N.Y.2d 173 (1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 32 People v. Sweeney, 27 Misc.3d 134(A) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010). . . . 32, 40 People v. Ubbink, 120 A.D.3d 1574 (4th Dept. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 People v. Venson, 47 Misc.3d 92 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2015). . . . 28, 32, 40,
43 People v. Watson, 32 A.D.3d 1199 (4th Dept. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 People v. Westwood, 53 Misc.3d 74 (App. Term. 2d Dept. 2016).. . . . . . . . 32
iii

FEDERAL CASES
Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). . . . . . United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010). . . . . . Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . .
STATE STATUTES C.P.L. § 470.15(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.P.L. § 70.10(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penal Law § 120.45(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penal Law § 120.45(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penal Law § 240.25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penal Law § 240.26(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FEDERAL STATUTES U.S. Const. amend. I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Const. amend. XIV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 40, 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 23 OTHER AUTHORITIES
L. 1999, c. 635 § 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Lopez and Bast, The Difficulties in Prosecuting Stalking Cases, 45 No. 1 Crim. Law Bulletin Art. 2, Winter 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Wiggins, Stalking Humans: Is There a Need For Federalization of Anti- Stalking Laws In Order to Prevent Recidivism in Stalking?, 50 Syracuse L. Rev. 1067, 1074-75 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
William Donnino, Practice Commentary, Penal Law § 120.40.. . . . . . . . . . . 40 iv

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: FIRST DEPARTMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, :
Respondent, : -against- :
JOHN RINALDI, : Defendant-Appellant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 5531
1. The docket number in the court below was 2015NY030419.
2. The full names of the original parties were People of the State of New York against John Rinaldi.
3. This action was commenced in Criminal Court, New York County by filing a misdemeanor complaint.
45. This appeal is from a judgment convicting appellant, after a bench trial, of two counts of Stalking in the Fourth Degree (Penal Law §§ 120.45(1), 120.45(2)) and one count each of Harassment in the First degree (Penal Law § 240.25) and Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 240.26(3)). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 60 days’ incarceration, plus a $200 surcharge and $50 DNA fee.
5. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered June 17, 2016 (McGrath, J.).
6. Appellant has been granted permission to appeal as a poor person on the original record. The appendix method is not being used.
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 640.3(c)
Mr. Rinaldi has served his 60-day sentence and paid the $200 surcharge and
$50 fee. He is not presently incarcerated. v

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York
County, rendered June 17, 2016, convicting Mr. Rinaldi, after a bench trial, of two counts of fourth-degree stalking and one count each of first-degree and second- degree harassment, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 60 days’ incarceration (McGrath, J., at trial and sentence).
This Court, on or about January 19, 2017, granted Mr. Rinaldi leave to appeal as a poor person and assigned Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, as counsel. There were no co-defendants below.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the evidence was insufficient or the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence where the People failed to prove that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a course of conduct that had no legitimate purpose, that he knew or should have known that his communication with the complainant was not welcome, that he intended to harass the complainant, or that the complainant reasonably feared or experienced material harm or feared physical injury. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Rinaldi was charged with two counts each of stalking and harassment
arising from his conduct relating to actress Brooke Shields occurring between November, 2013, and May, 2015. This was not, however, a conventional stalking or harassment case. Thirty years ago, after a young Mr. Rinaldi wrote fan letters
1

to Ms. Shields, her mother Teri responded and changed Mr. Rinaldi’s life. She informed his parents about his secret– that he had been sexually abused by a neighbor– and Mr. Rinaldi was forever changed by that kindness and the subsequent relationship he developed with Teri Shields. In the years that followed, Mr. Rinaldi periodically contacted Brooke for various reasons, including to seek support for his charitable foundations, and Ms. Shields never once told him that these contacts were unwelcome. In 2015, however, more than 30 years after he first wrote to her, Ms. Shields decided to file a complaint. Despite his entirely legitimate reasons for contacting her and the fact that he lived in her neighborhood, and had for many years before Ms. Shields moved there, Mr. Rinaldi was criminally charged and subsequently convicted. The People failed to prove that he engaged in a course of conduct with no legitimate purpose that caused Ms. Shields to fear or experience material harm. They also failed to prove that he intentionally harassed Ms. Shields or that she reasonably feared physical injury. For these reasons, Mr. Rinaldi’s convictions must be reversed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Trial
Opening Arguments
The prosecutor set up her case as an effort to protect Ms. Shields, a celebrity who “has the right to feel safe” in her home just like anyone else, from a
2

man who “stripped that right away” from her (T11:89-90). Mr. Rinaldi, she claimed, “terrorized” Ms. Shields despite knowing that his contact was “unwanted,” by posting online messages about or directed at her, appearing at her public events, and parking outside and approaching her home on several occasions (T1:90-91).
Defense counsel argued that Mr. Rinaldi’s actions did not rise to the level of criminal conduct (T1:92). His communications with Ms. Shields had legitimate purposes and once he was clearly warned that they were unwelcome, he stayed away (T1:92-93). The People’s case was nothing more than a desperate attempt to pacify Ms. Shields because she was a celebrity (T1:93).
The Background
In the early 1980's, Ms. Shields first became aware of Mr. Rinaldi, a fan who sent her letters and called her house (T1:Shields 128). At some point, she learned that Mr. Rinaldi became friendly with her mother Teri Shields [“Teri”] and she learned the basis for their relationship (T2:Shields 6,10,46). In early letters, young Mr. Rinaldi disclosed that he had been sexually assaulted by a neighbor but had been unable to tell anyone (See Email to Jill Fritzo, People’s Exhibit 7). Teri shared this information with his parents, leading to the neighbor’s arrest (id.). Teri’s actions left a deep and lasting impact on Mr. Rinaldi (id.; see also AOL
1Numbers in parentheses preceded by “T1" refer to minutes from the bench trial proceedings on June 13, 2016; those preceded by “T2" refer to minutes from June 14 and June 17, 2016.
3

Build video, People’s Exhibit 2, at 22:05-24:36). Mr. Rinaldi contacted Ms. Shields periodically from the 1980's to 2013.2
For more than 30 years, Ms. Shields employed security firm Gavin de Becker and Associates [“de Becker”] for services including “threat assessment” and investigations of the 2,930 “inappropriate pursuers” who contacted her (T1:Creter 104-09,122; Shields 129). Some of Ms. Shields’s pursuers were “stalkers” who were arrested (T1: Shields 172). Those who were “agitated or obsessive” engaged in escalating behavior that “started off rather innocuous and. . . ended quite badly” (T2:Shields 17). Ms. Shields had “never seen” these types of situations calm down, she had only seen them “increase and accelerate” and she believed that “anything can lead to an escalation” (T2:Shields 17-18). The firm advocated a “Watch and Wait” approach, encouraging Ms. Shields not to respond to letters or calls, but rather to forward all information to the firm for long-term evaluation (T1:Creter 109-10,120-21; Shields 129; T2: Shields 16). Ms. Shields and her husband, Chris Henchy, were told not to “engage or indulge anybody’s behavior” and to remain “impassive” yet “polite” (T1:Shields 130-31; T2:Shields 18; Henchy 210-11).
2 Some of the “contacts” merely involved his presence in the audience or by the stage door after Ms. Shields’s appearances in Broadway shows. He occasionally gave her flowers or commented on things she had shared on social media. She was always cordial to Mr. Rinaldi (T1:Shields 133- 34,165-68; T2:Shields 6-7). None of this occurred between November, 2013, and May, 2015.
4

John Rinaldi was flagged by de Becker as an “inappropriate pursuer” in the 1980's (T1:Creter 111, 115). The firm documented 35 interactions he had with Ms. Shields over the 30-plus years, including 15 letters and 16 personal encounters (T1:Creter 112-13). During that period, Ms. Shields never told Mr. Rinaldi to stop contacting her (T1:Shields 137; T2:Shields 19). In fact, she tried to avoid all communication with Mr. Rinaldi because she did not believe he was “rational” (T2:Shields 19). She was never, however, unkind to Mr. Rinaldi (T2:Shields 45). Sometime prior to November, 2013, Ms. Shields asked her husband, Mr. Henchy, to tell Mr. Rinaldi that he was “making [them] uncomfortable” and to cease contacting them (T1:Shields 137).
Ms. Shields and Mr. Henchy moved to West 10th Street in the West Village, between Hudson and Bleecker streets, around 2010-11 (T1:Shields 134; T2:Henchy 191-92,204). Nearly four years later, Ms. Shields first ran into Mr. Rinaldi, who mentioned that he had been living in the neighborhood for a while (T1:Shields 170-71;T2:Shields 13-14).
The de Becker firm logged three encounters involving Mr. Rinaldi between November, 2013, and May, 2015 (T1:Creter 114). It recommended an updated investigation and assessment, but Ms. Shields did not contract for it to do either (T1:Creter 115). She also did not request bodyguards or updated security services (T1:Creter 118-19). The firm did not recommend that Ms. Shields file criminal
5

charges against Mr. Rinaldi (T1:Creter 121-22). The Incidents
Mr. Rinaldi was charged with conduct occurring between November, 2013, and May, 2015 (Court File: Prosecutor’s Information).
On November 8, 2013, Dan McCann, Ms. Shields’s personal assistant for 12 years, showed her a box that had been delivered to her house (T1:Shields 135- 36; T2:Shields 8; McCann 53, 68). Ms. Shields thought it was a “gift for [her] children” from Mr. Rinaldi, a box containing “little stuffed animals” (T1:Shields 136-37; T2:Shields 32). In fact, the box had a single teddy bear inside along with letters relating to Mr. Rinaldi’s Sandy Hook charity organization, “The Sandy Hook CenTer”(T2:McCann 69; Letters dated October 3 & 4, 2013, People’s Exhibit 5). One letter, addressed to Ms. Shields, explained that the teddy bear was from a memorial center and invited the recipient to return it to the memorial site at a future ceremony (T2:McCann 69-72; Henchy 214; People’s Exhibit 5). The other was a form letter that mentioned celebrities who have embraced the cause (T2:McCann 71-72; People’s Exhibit 5).
Ms. Shields refused to look at these letters and “asked not to be told what they were” because she “did not want anything to do with them”(T1:Shields 164- 65; T2: Shields 32-33). Instead, she instructed someone to send them to de Becker because her “kids have enough toys” (T1:Shields 164; T2: Shields 33). Ms. Shields
6

felt that she had kept Mr. Rinaldi’s contact at an acceptable level for “quite a long time,” but he had crossed a line with the delivery, which made her feel “violated and terrified” because “barriers that [she] had felt had been rather intact over the course of many years were breaking down” (T1:Shields 137-38; T2:Shields 32). Despite Mr. McCann’s lengthy tenure with Ms. Shields, this was the first time he had ever heard of John Rinaldi (T2:McCann 53,68,73).
On November 23, 2013, Ms. Shields was returning home with Mike Zarara, her social media assistant who had worked for her for more than eight years, when they saw Mr. Rinaldi near her house (T1:Shields 135,138; T2:Zarara 103- 04,160). He was holding something and said: “I want to give this to you” or “[H]ere, I want Rowan [Shields’s daughter] to have this” (T1:Shields 139-40; T2:Shields 24;Zarara 104). Ms. Shields told Mr. Zarara that Mr. Rinaldi was “one of the guys,” and she quickly went into her house (T1:Shields 138-39; T2:Zarara 104). According to Mr. Zarara, Mr. Rinaldi shouted after her: “What, you don’t want it?”(T2:Zarara 105). He did not try to block them from entering the gate, nor did Mr. Rinaldi enter the gate or try to follow them up the stairs (T2: Zarara 171- 72). This was the first time Mr. Zarara had ever seen Mr. Rinaldi (T2:Zarara 103,168).
Mr. Zarara asked who Mr. Rinaldi was and what he wanted (T2:Zarara 105,167-68). Mr. Rinaldi introduced himself and said he was “friendly,” not
7

“creepy,” before offering his driver’s license, which Mr. Zarara photographed, showing that he lived nearby on Waverly Place (T2:Zarara 105-06,177-78; People’s Exhibit 8). Mr. Zarara acted “friendly” with Mr. Rinaldi, trying to make him “comfortable” (T2:Zarara 177). Mr. Rinaldi handed Mr. Zarara the item and Zarara thanked him, shook his hand, and brought it into the house (T2: Zarara 106,178). Ms. Shields recognized it as a silver picture frame with a photo of her inside that her mother had distributed at one of her birthday parties when she was younger (T1:Shields 139; T2:Shields 9,22,24; T2:Zarara 176,179).
A few minutes later, Mr. Zarara went outside to speak with Mr. Rinaldi, who was now on the corner of Bleecker and West 10th Street, and asked what he was doing there. Mr. Rinaldi said he was waiting for a friend to get coffee (T2:Zarara 107-08,186). Mr. Zarara told him to “please not approach anyone in the home” or contact them and that it was “inappropriate to appear at someone’s home uninvited” (T2:Zarara 109,186-87). Mr. Rinaldi responded that he is a “nice guy” who lives in the neighborhood and though he frequently sees the family around, he never bothers them (T2:Zarara 109,187). They shook hands, and Mr. Zarara later reported the incident to de Becker (T2:Zarara 172,180,187-88). He did not see Mr. Rinaldi again until the trial (T2:Zarara 188).
On December 8, 2013, Ms. Shields and Mr. McCann saw Mr. Rinaldi outside as they left the house and got onto McCann’s motor scooter. He
8

approached them trying to get her attention or say something, but they did not listen and simply rode away (T1:Shields 140-41; T2:Shields 11-12; McCann 55- 56,74). Mr. Rinaldi did not try to interfere with them in any way (T1: Shields 141;T2: Shields 12; McCann 56,75). Mr. McCann did not see Mr. Rinaldi in the neighborhood again until May 5, 2015 (T2:McCann 76-77). Ms. Shields did not discuss Mr. Rinaldi with him or ask him to speak with Mr. Rinaldi during the intervening 17 months (T2:McCann 76-77). Mr. McCann did not see Mr. Rinaldi in the neighborhood after May 5, 2015, either (T2:McCann 85).
Also in December, 2013, Kelly Corrigan– the nanny for Ms. Shields’s children for more than four years– answered the door one day and saw Mr. Rinaldi standing on the sidewalk behind the unlocked gate (T1: Shields 134-35; T2:Corrigan 91,93-94,100). He introduced himself and asked whether they had received his previous package (T2:Corrigan 91-92,100). This was the first time Ms. Corrigan had ever seen Mr. Rinaldi (T2:Corrigan 96). The entire encounter was ordinary and did not alarm her in any way (T2: Corrigan 101). She later informed Ms. Shields and Mr. Henchy about the incident, and they advised her to “be alert” and to report any future interactions (T2:Corrigan 92). She never saw Mr. Rinaldi or his car in the neighborhood after that (T2:Corrigan 93, 97).
On March 4, 2014, Mr. Henchy ran into Mr. Rinaldi on the corner of Bleecker and West 10th Street (T2:Henchy 192). Mr. Rinaldi approached him and
9

said he might have “spooked” Ms. Shields the last time he saw her (T2:Henchy 193,206). Trying to keep the encounter “brief and non-confrontational” and not to “antagonize” or “engage” Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Henchy responded that Mr. Rinaldi was correct (T2:Henchy 193,206-11). He told Mr. Rinaldi that his wife “likes her privacy and going up to her” or “going up to the house and knocking on the door” makes her “unsettled and nervous and scared” (T2:Henchy 193).
Mr. Rinaldi nodded and said he meant no harm. Mr. Henchy, who was “trying to send [him] a message to stay away,” added: “I just think it is best you avoid her” and then he walked away (T2:Henchy 194). He “looked [Mr. Rinaldi] in the eye,” told him to “leave Brooke alone,” and hoped that Mr. Rinaldi “received that message” (T2:Henchy 217). During their conversation, Mr. Rinaldi mentioned that his niece was coincidentally named Rowan, the same as Henchy’s daughter (T2:Henchy 207). Mr. Henchy reported the incident to de Becker but not to the police (T2:Henchy 194). This was the only personal interaction he ever had with Mr. Rinaldi (T2:Henchy 202).
Mr. Rinaldi did not approach their house or Ms. Shields after that conversation, and Henchy did not see Mr. Rinaldi again until the trial; he did, however, see Mr. Rinaldi’s car parked nearby (T2:Henchy 218-19, 211).
On November 18, 2014, Ms. Shields appeared at an event promoting her book, “There Was a Little Girl: The Real Story of My Mother and Me” (T1:
10

Shields 141; People’s Exhibit 2). She spotted Mr. Rinaldi in the front row and, during an audience question session, he handed her a picture of himself with her mother Teri and explained that she had played an important role in his life by encouraging his parents to investigate a problem he had with a neighbor. This inspired him to help others, and he wanted to express his gratitude for Teri’s actions (T2:Shields 9-10; People’s Exhibit 2 at 22:05-24:36). Mr. Rinaldi mentioned that he had discussed this with Ms. Shields and her husband after her daughter was born, when he gave them a gift. Ms. Shields recalled the conversation (People’s Exhibit 2 at 22:40-22:50).
Ms. Shields testified that she was hoping that Mr. Rinaldi’s “emotions [wouldn’t] get too high” during the exchange and he wouldn’t “get agitated” or “escalate” the situation (T1:Shields 142-43,169). Nevertheless, she was “congenial. . .pleasant” and “gracious” in responding to his story, which she claimed had “nothing to do with the event” (T1: Shields 142, 168; T2: Shields 23). Of course, Ms. Shields’s book was about her relationship with Teri, whom she claimed was “insecure,” and Mr. Rinaldi said that he thought Teri’s actions showed that she was actually confident (T2:Shields 10,41-42; People’s Exhibit 2 at 23:22-23:29).
After this event, Ms. Shields saw Mr. Rinaldi “more frequently in [her] neighborhood, always around [her] home” (T1:Shields 146). She claimed to see him five or six times during this period, but she did not identify any specific
11

encounters (T1:Shields 153; T2:Shields 11,20-21,25-26). She also saw his car, which she recognized because his license plate bore his last name, at least a few times (T1:Shields 146,153; T2:Shields 12-13;People’s Exhibit 3). When Ms. Shields did see Mr. Rinaldi near her home, she tried to get past him or, if she was with her kids, avoided going home altogether (T1:Shields 147). Seeing him made her feel “electric,” “on point, ready,” “fearful,” “on edge,” “preoccupied,” as well as “victimized” and “vulnerable” (T1:Shields 147-48).
On May 5, 2015, Ms. Shields returned home from working out with her trainer when she saw Mr. Rinaldi (T1:Shields 149). She “could tell he was waiting. . . could feel he was waiting for the [trainer] to leave so he could approach [her]” (T1:Shields 149). Ms. Shields went into the house and avoided Mr. Rinaldi, who said nothing (T1:Shields 149). That evening, Ms. Shields and Mr. McCann noticed Mr. Rinaldi’s car parked in front of her house with Ms. Shields’s name written in dirt on the window, “eerily similar” to how she signs her name but without the “XX” she typically appends (T1: Shields 149-50; T2:McCann 57,78). She found it “disturbing and creepy,” and considered it “some kind of message” (T1:Shields 150; T2:McCann 79). At Ms. Shields’s prompting, Mr. McCann wiped it off with his sleeve (T1:Shields 150; T2:McCann 57,79).
When Ms. Shields and Mr. McCann returned later that night, they saw rustling in the back seat of Mr. Rinaldi’s car (T1:Shields 151; T2:McCann 58,80).
12

They went into the house, and Ms. Shields instructed Mr. McCann to tell Mr. Rinaldi to leave. As he approached the car, Mr. Rinaldi drove away (T1:Shields 151; McCann 58-59,80). Ms. Shields “finally had enough,” and she went to the precinct and filed a complaint (T1:Shields 148,151,153; T2:Shields 26; McCann 62).
Ms. Shields told Detective Stanley Dash that Mr. Rinaldi had never threatened her and that she did not want him arrested, but she wanted her complaint kept on file (T2:Dash 229,245). Afterwards, she asked Mr. McCann to stay at her house because she did not want to be alone (T1: Shields 153-54; T2:McCann 63).
The next morning, May 6, 2015, Lieutenant Kevin Blake was told about the harassment complaint and learned that Mr. Rinaldi was parked on a street behind the precinct, asleep in his car (T2:Blake 253). Lt. Blake found Mr. Rinaldi and knocked on the window (T2:Blake 254,259). Mr. Rinaldi identified himself and Lt. Blake warned that he should stay away from Ms. Shields, her house, and her family and stop posting about her online(T2: Blake 254-55,260). Mr. Rinaldi was cooperative and acknowledged the warnings (T2:Blake 255). This was the first time Lt. Blake had ever seen Mr. Rinaldi or his car (T2:Blake 258).
Around 3:30 that afternoon, Lt. Blake saw Mr. Rinaldi walking past Ms. Shields’s house (T2:Blake 255). He was walking “somewhat briskly,” and he “sort
13

of slowed down” as he passed the building but continued without stopping (T2: Blake 256,260-61). Lt. Blake enlisted Detective Dash, and the two found Mr. Rinaldi a few minutes later inside the Starbucks on the corner of West 10th Street and Hudson, working on his laptop (T2:Blake 256,261; Dash 231). Lt. Blake asked Mr. Rinaldi to step outside, and he cooperated. There, Lt. Blake mentioned their earlier conversation and said Mr. Rinaldi was “inviting trouble” by walking in front of Ms. Shields’s home (T2:Blake 256,261).
Mr. Rinaldi said he had walked past it on his usual route to Starbucks, and he did not know why Ms. Shields would be uncomfortable as he had known her for years (T2:Dash 231-32). Detective Dash responded that his relationship was with Ms. Shields’s mother, and Mr. Rinaldi acknowledged this (T2:Dash 231). Detective Dash and Lt. Blake instructed Mr. Rinaldi to “cease this behavior”– approaching the house, contacting her, “tweeting about” her or referencing the “situation” online– or the police would be forced to arrest him (T2:Blake 256-57; Dash 231-32). Mr. Rinaldi said he would no longer contact her (T2:Dash 232). This was the first time Detective Dash had ever seen Mr. Rinaldi, and he never noticed Rinaldi’s car parked outside the precinct (T2:Dash 243-44).
Between that day and May 16, 2015, Mr. McCann sent Detective Dash a number of Mr. Rinaldi’s tweets (T2:Dash 232; People’s Exhibit 25). He also forwarded an email that Mr. Rinaldi sent to Ms. Shields’s publicist Jill Fritzo
14

explaining that he would be surrendering to the police the next day but he was not guilty of stalking or harassment (T2:McCann 63; Dash 235; People’s Exhibit 7).
On May 16, 2015, Mr. Rinaldi voluntarily surrendered at the precinct (T2:Dash 236,246). Detective Dash Mirandized him, and after Mr. Rinaldi signed the waiver, he told Dash that though he was not supposed to contact Ms. Shields, he emailed Ms. Fritzo and tweeted about Ms. Shields because he wanted to tell his side of the story to avoid tarnishing the name of his charitable organization (T2: Dash 236-37). Detective Dash never saw Mr. Rinaldi again (T2:Dash 244).
Mr. Rinaldi’s actions from 2013 to 2015 made Ms. Shields feel like she was “at the whim of somebody else” and she felt “not as free” or as secure, leading her to be “hypervigilant” and “more on edge” (T1:Shields 162). She felt this way though Mr. Rinaldi never verbally threatened her and his correspondence and encounters had always involved him trying to be generous or give her a gift (T1:Shields 163; T2: Shields 4-5). She perceived him as a threat, however, because his “agitated expression” and “energy was enough to signify that he was off balance” (T2: Shields 4). Though Ms. Shields believed that Mr. Rinaldi’s various correspondence contained “verbal attacks” about her being “horrible” to him and about people in her life, she acknowledged that they also contained communications about his charity work, his relationship with her mother, and how Teri saved his life (T2: Shields 5-6). Ms. Shields also admitted that she “didn’t
15

read so many of the correspondence” (T2: Shields 5). Ms. Shields was afraid for her children, and she began to “look left and right” before leaving her house and started exiting from a basement entrance so as to avoid being “vulnerable” on the front steps (T1:Shields 154-55). She did not, however, retain the services of a bodyguard (T1:Shields 155).
The Social Media Evidence
The prosecution offered many of Mr. Rinaldi’s tweets (Twitter comments) and social media posts to or about Ms. Shields into evidence as proof that he engaged in a course of conduct directed at her. The court rejected some for evidentiary reasons (T2:134-35, 147). As all of the posts were protected speech that could not be criminalized, infra pp. 34-37, only those relevant to his state of mind for the criminal charges will be recounted hereafter.
Ms. Shields, it should be noted, stopped reading her Twitter feed because it made her “too. . .hypersensitive and nervous” (T1:Shields 161; T2: Shields 34).3 She did not manage her Twitter account, but left it to Mr. Zarara and her “publicity team” (T2:Shields 34-35). After his encounter with Mr. Rinaldi, Mr. Zarara regularly checked Twitter to see if he tagged Ms. Shields4 (T2:Zarara 182).
3At some point, Ms. Shields did, however, read a few of the tweets that were offered into evidence at trial (T2:Shields 35,37).
4When someone “tags” another user on Twitter, it sends a notification to that person that their account has been referenced (T2:Zarara 188-89).
16

Mr. Rinaldi did,5 but his tweets never mentioned or implied that he wanted to cause Ms. Shields physical harm (T2:Zarara 182).
On November 26, 2013, a “WhoSay” account6 associated with Mr. Rinaldi commented on a photo that Ms. Shields posted: “[V]ery disappointed. And horrified to hear saying hello was inappropriate” (T2:Zarara 110-13; Holtzman 224-25; People’s Exhibit 10). He also welcomed her to the neighborhood, where he had lived for 18 years (People’s Exhibit 10).
On November 28, 2014, Mr. Rinaldi referenced the AOL Build event on his blog and mentioned that he sees her around the neighborhood periodically and they “go back 28 years” (T2:Zarara 116-17; People’s Exhibit 12).
In one tweet, Mr. Rinaldi suggested Ms. Shields be “nicer” to him, though she claimed she “didn’t understand what he was talking about” (T2:Shields 49; People’s Exhibit 6). A different tweet mentioned Mr. Rinaldi parking in front of Ms. Shield’s house because the space is adjacent to a police precinct (T2:McCann 81; People’s Exhibit 25).
After Ms. Shields returned home with her trainer on May 5, 2015, she claimed Mr. Rinaldi tweeted that he saw that she had “just gone to the West Side
5The People’s exhibits reveal clusters of tweets from Mr. Rinaldi centered around the encounters discussed at trial, but there are also sustained periods of inactivity on Twitter between, for example, March 2014 and October, 2014, and December 2014, and early May, 2015.
6WhoSay is a social media site for celebrities and public figures (T2:Zarara 109). 17

Highway to work out in the park” (T1:Shields 152). She believed this meant he had followed her there (T1:Shields 152). In fact, Mr. Rinaldi merely tweeted: “just saw u as ur workout partner dropped u home. My entire life- man I am is bcuz u & ur mom. Pls b nicer- I’m sch gd guy!” (T2:Shields 38; People’s Exhibit 6). Ms. Shields called this “extremely upsetting” because she did not know how Mr. Rinaldi “could have known that was [her] trainer” (T2:Shields 38). She conceded that she was wearing exercise clothes at the time (T2:Shields 39).
Several tweets between May 5 and May 16, 2015, were admitted over counsel’s objections that they, inter alia, involved “protected speech” and occurred outside the period charged in the accusatory instruments (T2:130-40). In one of the tweets, Mr. Rinaldi said: “Shame on u to use celebrity to bully” (People’s Exhibit 15). This was one of three tweets that referenced bullying (id.).
Mr. Henchy apparently found a portion of the email to Jill Fritzo particularly upsetting. In it, Mr. Rinaldi referenced an actress named Rebecca Schaeffer who had been killed by a stalker named Robert John Bardo (T2:Henchy 196-98; People’s Exhibit 7). This was a small portion of a lengthy, 5-page email and its context was apparent from Mr. Rinaldi’s explanation that the case had “shaped the stalking laws”7 (T2:Henchy 199-201;People’s Exhibit 7).
7Legal scholarship supports Mr. Rinaldi’s conclusion. See Lopez and Bast, The Difficulties in Prosecuting Stalking Cases, 45 No. 1 Crim. Law Bulletin Art. 2, Winter 2009; Wiggins, Stalking Humans: Is There a Need For Federalization of Anti-Stalking Laws In Order to Prevent Recidivism in Stalking?, 50 Syracuse L. Rev. 1067, 1074-75 (2000).
18

Mr. Rinaldi also insisted in the email that he was “not a stalker,” that the case was “defamation, at best,” and that he “would soon rather harm [him]self than to ever even disturb Brooke” (T2:Henchy 201-02; People’s Exhibit 7).
Trial Order of Dismissal
After the People’s case, defense counsel made an extensive motion for a trial order of dismissal. He argued first that the prosecution failed to prove that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a specific, concerted course of conduct. Counsel noted that the People’s evidence generally fell into two categories: Mr. Rinaldi’s appearances at or near the complainant’s home, and his social media contacts. He argued that Mr. Rinaldi’s presence near the house was always in furtherance of a legitimate purpose, and that the social media evidence generally expressed Mr. Rinaldi’s support for or disappointment with Ms. Shields, but never expressed threats or anything that could be construed as threatening (T2:264-72). Many other posts were efforts to defend himself against what he believed were slanderous accusations. Counsel also argued that there was no order of protection prohibiting the posts and they were an exercise of Mr. Rinaldi’s right to express himself that could not be criminalized (T2:272-75).
Though Mr. Rinaldi’s conduct may have been “inappropriate” or “awkward,” counsel argued it was not likely to cause fear in a reasonable person (T2:275-77). He added that the People failed to prove that Ms. Shields actually
19

suffered “material harm to her mental or emotional health” or that she was scared of Mr. Rinaldi (T2:280-82).
Counsel also argued that Mr. Rinaldi did not and could not have reasonably known that his contacts would cause Ms. Shields to experience fear and that any warnings he received were ambiguous (T2:277-79). He noted that a critical factor was Mr. Rinaldi’s relationship with Teri Shields, which proved that Mr. Rinaldi was not a total stranger to the complainant and that he had reason to believe his contact was appropriate (T2:279-80). Addressing the harassment counts, counsel argued that there was no evidence that Ms. Shields was placed in reasonable fear of physical injury or that Mr. Rinaldi intended to “harass, annoy, or alarm” her (T2:284-85).
The prosecutor responded that the “sheer number of contacts” proved that Mr. Rinaldi’s only purpose was to “get[] close to Ms. Shields,” “be[] friends with her,” and “harass and annoy” her (T2:286, 291-92). She then argued that many of the social media contacts demonstrated his hostility towards Ms. Shields and occurred in-between the personal interactions; together, she argued, they established a continuous course of conduct (T2:287-92). A “reasonable person would be scared by” Mr. Rinaldi’s behavior and “could see that there is no legitimate purpose for all of this” (T2:291). Ms. Shields, the prosecutor argued, experienced material harm because she “looks both ways before going outside. .
20

.[and] is more nervous” and her children sleep “closer to her and facing the police department” (T2:292-93). Addressing the harassment charges, the prosecutor insisted that a reasonable person could perceive Mr. Rinaldi’s conduct, after “being told multiple times to stop,” as posing a “threat to her physical safety” (T2:293).
The court reserved decision on the motion (T2:293).
The Defense Case
Defense counsel moved into evidence a record showing that Mr. Rinaldi
had been a customer at The Village Apothecary, a pharmacy located on the corner of Bleecker Street and West 10th Street, since 2003 (T2:294-95; Defense Exhibit A). This was well before Ms. Shields moved into the neighborhood. Counsel renewed his motion for a trial order of dismissal and added that the pharmacy records showed that Mr. Rinaldi had a legitimate purpose for being on Ms. Shields’s block (T2:296). The court again reserved decision (T2:296).
Summations
Defense counsel incorporated his motion for dismissal in summation and argued that the case had to be viewed through the “specific lens” that Mr. Rinaldi was not a stranger to Ms. Shields. His relationship with Teri was a basis for his communication with Brooke and an inspiration for his charity, which served as another legitimate reason he contacted Ms. Shields (T2:297-99). Further, he was
21

never clearly informed that his communications were not welcome and he insisted that he would rather harm himself than harm or scare Ms. Shields (T2:307).
Counsel argued that the evidence was not credible where so many of the witnesses were biased or offered little substantive testimony (T2:299-302). Ms. Shields, moreover, was biased by the many “inappropriate pursuers” she had over the years and had come to expect that encounters with them might endanger her, even where there was no rational reason for such fear (T2:302-03,306-07). Ms. Shields’s testimony, tainted by irrational fear, “did not jibe with” other prosecution witnesses, including her own husband, none of whom corroborated her testimony that Mr. Rinaldi was regularly near her home (T2:303-05).
Counsel concluded that the case was brought only “because the complainant is Brooke Shields. . . because she is famous” and insisted that this case would have been dismissed if the complainant was not a celebrity (T2:307).
The prosecutor again argued that “everyone has a right to feel safe in their neighborhood and inside their homes,” including celebrities like Ms. Shields (T2: 309). She insisted that Mr. Rinaldi crossed a line by referencing Ms. Shields’s daughter Rowan and argued that Mr. Rinaldi was told to stay away by Mr. Zarara and by Mr. Henchy (T2:310-11). He continued to “harass” and “annoy” Ms. Shields after receiving those warnings by appearing at the AOL event, tweeting at and posting about Ms. Shields online, parking near her house, and appearing
22

outside it on May 5, 2015, before writing her name on his car (T2:312-28). He did not cease his conduct even after he was warned to stay away and to stop posting online by the police officers (T2:321-28). She concluded that the stalking laws are designed to “stop unstable and unhinged individuals before it escalates to the point of violence” and the court should hold Mr. Rinaldi “accountable” by finding him guilty of all charges (T2:330-32).
Verdict and Sentence
The court convicted Mr. Rinaldi of both fourth-degree stalking counts and both harassment counts, and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 60 days incarceration (T2:332-33, 337-38).
ARGUMENT
THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE THAT MR. RINALDI ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT HAD NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THAT HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT WELCOME, THAT HE INTENDED TO HARASS THE COMPLAINANT, OR THAT THE COMPLAINANT REASONABLY EXPERIENCED OR FEARED MATERIAL HARM OR FEARED PHYSICAL INJURY. U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV; N.Y. CONST. ART. I, § 6.
Brooke Shields is a celebrity, and during the course of her 30-year career, she has collected nearly 3,000 “inappropriate pursuers,” many of whom may well
23

have intentionally crossed appropriate boundaries into her private life. Mr. Rinaldi is not one of those people. Beginning early in Ms. Shields’s career, he developed a meaningful relationship with her mother Teri, whose generosity changed Mr. Rinaldi’s life. He contacted Ms. Shields periodically during the ensuing decades to express his gratitude for her mother’s kindnesses, to support Ms. Shields’s career, to be hospitable to a neighbor, and to seek assistance with his own charitable endeavors. Ms. Shields never once told Mr. Rinaldi that his contacts were unwelcome, and they apparently did not dismay her before November, 2013. It was then, several years after Ms. Shields had moved into the same neighborhood as Mr. Rinaldi, that he first approached her home seeking assistance with his charity. Though Ms. Shields apparently felt that Mr. Rinaldi was somehow “escalating” his behavior and crossing previously-established boundaries, her feelings were unreasonable. Though she believed she saw him many times over the next few years, her ever-present coterie of employees and family each saw him no more than once or twice during that same period, and only her husband saw Mr. Rinaldi’s car parked in front of their home. Ms. Shields was clearly experiencing a “hypervigilance” or “hypersensitivity,” as she described it, and that was the true cause for the shift in her attitude towards Mr. Rinaldi.
Mr. Rinaldi did not engage in a course of conduct once he learned that his communications with Ms. Shields were no longer welcome. Further, he had
24

entirely legitimate purposes for every communication both before and after he was equivocally advised to avoid her. Then, when he followed that advice, he was still arrested and the People, desperate to make their case, offered at trial a torrent of Mr. Rinaldi’s social media posts that were legitimate expressions of free speech that could not fairly be criminalized– and many of which were defenses at what he perceived to be an unjust prosecution and essentially a scarlet letter destined to harm his charitable organization.
This case should never have been prosecuted, and Mr. Rinaldi certainly should not have been convicted upon such plainly insufficient evidence. This Court must reverse the convictions and dismiss the accusatory instrument.
When reviewing a conviction for legal sufficiency, this Court can affirm only if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that each essential element of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 (1987). Generally, “‘[L]egally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged.” C.P.L. § 70.10(1).
When reviewing the weight of the evidence, in contrast to reviewing for legal sufficiency, this Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, it must assess whether, based on all credible evidence, “an acquittal would not have been
25

unreasonable.” People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348 (2007); see also People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 643 (2006). Then this Court “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony.” Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495; see also C.P.L. § 470.15(5). “If this review of the record leads this court to conclude that ‘the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict.’” Romero, 7 N.Y.3d at 643-44 (quoting Bleakley). Although there must be some deference to the jury, “[e]ssentially, the court sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial.” Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348.
Mr. Rinaldi’s convictions were legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence.
A. The Evidence Was Insufficient to Prove That Mr. Rinaldi Intentionally Engaged in a Course of Conduct With No Legitimate Purpose, That He Did So to Harass or Annoy Ms. Shields, or That She Suffered a Reasonable Fear of Material Harm or Physical Injury, or That She Experienced Material Harm.
The conduct attributed to Mr. Rinaldi in this case falls into one of several legitimate categories, including: (1) expressions of support for Ms. Shields or gratitude for her mother Teri; (2) requests for donations or assistance for his charitable organization; (3) offers of gifts, benefits, or other hospitable acts; and (4) mere proximity to her home. None of the evidence suggests that Mr. Rinaldi
26

intended to make Ms. Shields fearful or that he had any reason to believe his conduct would have that effect. Indeed, he appeared near her home, in the same neighborhood where he had lived for 20 years, just once after the only clear warning he received arguably suggesting his contact was unwelcome. This did not establish a concerted course of conduct, a critical element in both the stalking and harassment charges. Further, the People failed to prove that Ms. Shields experienced material harm or fear of material harm or physical injury, or that any fear she did experience was reasonable.
The prosecution tried to paper over these fundamental deficiencies by burying the court in Mr. Rinaldi’s innocuous social media posts and emails. These were mere distractions, cover for the absence of an identifiable course of conduct occurring after Mr. Rinaldi was allegedly warned that his behavior was bothering Ms. Shields. As none of these were “true threats,” Mr. Rinaldi could not be penalized for his expression of speech under the First Amendment.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence failed to establish that Mr. Rinaldi committed the offenses of stalking or harassment, and his arguments are preserved by counsel’s exhaustive motion for a trial order of dismissal (T2:263-85). As Mr. Rinaldi has completed the maximum sentence for these offenses, his convictions must be vacated and the accusatory instrument dismissed. See People v. Burwell, 53 N.Y.2d 849, 824 (1981).
27

1. The Stalking Charges
The first and second subdivisions of the fourth-degree stalking statute require proof that the defendant, for “no legitimate purpose,” intentionally engaged in a “course of conduct” directed at a specific person. Penal Law §§ 120.45(1); 120.45(2). “No legitimate purpose” means the actor has no reason to “engage someone[,] other than to hound, frighten, intimidate or threaten” the person. People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 428 (2003). Though “course of conduct” has not been defined in the Penal Law, it is generally recognized as “a series of acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.” People v. Venson, 47 Misc.3d 92, 94 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).
Under subdivision one, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that this conduct was “likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety, or property” of the person, her family, or her associate(s). Penal Law § 120.45(1). Under subdivision two, the prosecution must prove that the defendant actually caused material harm to the mental or emotional health of the intended recipient after being “clearly informed to cease” his conduct. Penal Law § 120.45(2).
Course of Conduct With No Legitimate Purpose
Here, even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence failed to show that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a course of conduct that was
28

not legitimate or that he knew that his conduct was unwelcome, much less that it was likely to cause Ms. Shields reasonable fear. In fact, the evidence proved that Mr. Rinaldi had several legitimate reasons to engage with Ms. Shields and did not intend to “hound, frighten, intimidate or threaten” her.
Mr. Rinaldi’s contacts with Ms. Shields must be viewed in the context of his relationship with Ms. Shields’s mother Teri, which began more than 30 years ago. When Teri helped Mr. Rinaldi divulge the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of a neighbor, she left a powerful and lasting impression on Mr. Rinaldi. Further, this relationship led Mr. Rinaldi to believe that the complainant was not a complete stranger, but rather an acquaintance with whom he could and did periodically communicate. Ms. Shields knew about Mr. Rinaldi’s relationship with her mother and knew that he believed it changed his life (T1:Shields 128; T2:Shields 10,46; People’s Exhibit 2; People’s Exhibit 7; People’s Exhibit 12). She also acknowledged her mother’s habit of serving as a “savior” to “broken down” people (T2:Shields 49). Given that relationship, Mr. Rinaldi had no reason to believe that his innocuous conduct would be perceived as threatening.
For more than 30 years, Mr. Rinaldi wrote letters to Ms. Shields yet she never told Mr. Rinaldi his contact was unwelcome, nor was she ever present when anyone else did (T1:Shields 137; T2:Shields 19). In fact, she was always “gracious” with him and was never unkind (T2:Shields 18,44-45). Under these circumstances,
29

it would be difficult for Mr. Rinaldi to know that his contacts were unwanted, much less that they caused her fear.
The “Warnings”
The People’s theory was that Mr. Rinaldi learned his contact was unwelcome from Mr. Zarara on November 23, 2013, and from Mr. Henchy on March 4, 2014 (T2: 313, 315). The Zarara interaction, however, was ambiguous. After Mr. Rinaldi approached Ms. Shields and offered her a picture frame that he had been given by Teri years earlier, she went into the house and he spoke with Mr. Zarara, who acted “friendly” (T1: Shields 139; T2: Shields 8-9, 22-24; Zarara 176). He accepted the frame and shook Mr. Rinaldi’s hand (T2:Zarara 106,176- 78). A short while later, Mr. Zarara suggested that Mr. Rinaldi not “approach anyone in the home anymore” because it was “inappropriate” (T2:Zarara 109). He did not indicate that this request came from Ms. Shields, with whom Mr. Rinaldi believed he had a legitimate, if distant, relationship. Further, this was inconsistent with Mr. Zarara’s genial conduct minutes earlier. At best, Mr. Zarara’s words and actions sent mixed messages to Mr. Rinaldi.
The interaction with Mr. Henchy was slightly less ambiguous. Mr. Rinaldi suggested that he might have “spooked” Ms. Shields, though he “meant no harm” (T2:Henchy 193-94). Mr. Henchy responded, in a “brief and non-confrontational” manner, that she “likes her privacy” and that she became nervous and unsettled
30

when approached on the street or near her home (T2: Henchy 193). Trying to “send [Mr. Rinaldi] a message” that he “hoped” Mr. Rinaldi received, Mr. Henchy said either: “I just think it is best you avoid her” (T2:Henchy 194) or that Mr. Rinaldi should “leave Brooke alone” (T2:Henchy 217).
This was hardly a clear, unequivocal warning that Ms. Shields, a person with whom Mr. Rinaldi occasionally interacted for decades, was afraid of or threatened by him. Nevertheless, aside from the AOL Build event eight months later, Mr. Rinaldi had just one subsequent personal interaction with Ms. Shields before she went to the police on May 5, 2015.
Neither Mr. Zarara nor Mr. Henchy told Mr. Rinaldi not to post about Ms. Shields online.
Conduct Following the “Warnings”– The Lone Personal Interaction and the Walk-By
Mr. Rinaldi had just one personal interaction with Ms. Shields after the March, 2014, conversation with Mr. Henchy. On May 5, 2015, Ms. Shields saw him near her house as she returned from a workout with her trainer. Though she inferred that he was “waiting for [the trainer] to leave,” he did not say anything to Ms. Shields, much less anything suggesting he had been waiting for her (T1:Shields 149). Mr. Rinaldi’s presence in a neighborhood where he had lived for many years longer than Ms. Shields, and less than a block from businesses he frequented (including a coffee shop and The Village Apothecary, which he had
31

been patronizing since 2003) hardly suggested criminal conduct and was entirely attributable to coincidence (People’s Exhibit 8; Records of Village Apothecary, Defense Exhibit A). It certainly did not establish a specific intention to “hound, frighten, intimidate or threaten” Ms. Shields or her family. See Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d at 428.
The only other time anyone even saw Mr. Rinaldi near Ms. Shields’s residence after the Henchy conversation was when Lt. Blake saw him walk past the house on May 6, 2015. According to Blake, Mr. Rinaldi “sort of slowed down” as he passed before entering the nearby Starbucks, where Blake and Detective Dash found him working on his computer (T2:Blake 256). Mr. Rinaldi’s path to a local business took him past Ms. Shields’s home– it was not part of a concerted effort to frighten or intimidate Ms. Shields.
These two incidents– each more than a year after the conversation with Mr. Henchy– are the only conduct following the “warning” that supposedly put Mr. Rinaldi on notice that his contact was unwelcome. They do not share a “continuity of purpose” sufficient to establish a course of conduct. See People v. Sweeney, 27 Misc.3d 134(A) (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010); compare Venson, 47 Misc.3d at 94 (allegations were insufficient where defendant offered complainant gifts then approached her with an unrelated request) with People v. Westwood, 53 Misc.3d 74, 79-80 (App. Term. 2d Dept. 2016)(complaint sufficiently alleged continuous
32

course of conduct where defendant sent letters to stranger complainant asking her to call him and engage in sexual acts).
Conduct Following the “Warnings”– Social Media Speech
All of the other evidence following Mr. Henchy’s “warning” relates to Mr. Rinaldi’s social media posts and an email to Ms. Shields’s publicist, Jill Fritzo. Lacking sufficient proof of personal contact, the prosecution desperately cited these expressions of speech in an effort to incriminate Mr. Rinaldi. The First Amendment may not be so easily circumvented.
Freedom of speech is one of the inalienable rights provided in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the government may not restrict or punish it on the basis of its message, ideas, or content. People v. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d 1, 7 (2014) (citing United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010)); U.S. Const. amend. I. “[S]peech is presumptively protected and generally cannot be curtailed by the government,” subject to limited exceptions. Marquan M., 24 N.Y.3d at 7 (citations omitted). A particularly robust “breathing space” is tolerated in speech relating to public figures and celebrities. Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 52 (1985). Since the theory of guilt here was premised on whether Mr. Rinaldi’s social media acts placed Ms. Shields in reasonable fear of material harm, the question is whether Mr. Rinaldi’s posts were “true threats.”
33

“True threats” are statements “where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to commit an unlawful act of violence” towards an individual or group of individuals. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). A statement may be criminally punished if it inflicts injury “by [its] utterance alone” or “presents a clear and present danger of some serious substantive evil.” People v. Dietze, 75 N.Y.2d 47, 51-52 (1989).
The prosecutor cited a number of Mr. Rinaldi’s tweets, a post on his blog, and his email to Jill Fritzo as proof that he engaged in a course of conduct that he should have known would place Ms. Shields in fear of material harm (T2:315- 20,322-23,325). Since none of these communications contained true threats, Mr. Rinaldi may not be punished for engaging in protected speech.
Twitter is an “online social networking service that. . . enables its users to post (“Tweet”). . .and read the Tweets of other users.” People v. Harris, 36 Misc.3d 613, 615 (N.Y. County Crim. Ct., 2012). A “tweet” is a missive that may contain a photo or text up to 140 characters. Id. Each user on Twitter has a “unique username” and can monitor or “follow” other users’ tweets, as well as allow or forbid access to his own tweets. Id. at 615-16. Twitter is designed to be an “open method of communication” that can enable users worldwide to see an individual’s tweets. Id. The “blog” posts referenced at Mr. Rinaldi’s trial were originally posted on a website entitled “The Sandy Hook CenTer,” available at
34

http://www.thesandyhookkidscenter.com (People’s Exhibit 12).
Neither the tweets nor the blog post contained anything resembling a
threat. In fact, the tweets generally fell into one of three categories: (1) offers to Ms. Shields such as “lmk [let me know] if you want the parking space” (People’s Exhibit 13e) and requests like “DM [direct message] me about tomorrow” (People’s Exhibit 11); (2) comments about his history with Ms. Shields and her mother and photos involving one or both of them (People’s Exhibits 14, 15, 18); and (3) comments explaining or defending himself against what he believed were meritless and slanderous accusations (People’s Exhibits 6, 13f, 15). In the blog post dated November 28, 2014, Mr. Rinaldi wrote extensively about his charity work, mentioning Ms. Shields and her mother in just a few sentences suggesting that he saw Ms. Shields around their shared neighborhood and had known her for many years (People’s Exhibit 12). The prosecutor grouped these social media posts with various acts as part of the supposed course of conduct (T2:316-17). The blog posts and tweets were not true threats, they therefore could not establish a criminal course of conduct in compliance with the First Amendment.
The email to Jill Fritzo, also repeatedly referenced in the prosecutor’s summation, was nothing more than an impassioned defense against what Mr. Rinaldi felt were hurtful and false accusations leveled at him and his non-profit organization that caused him “pain and anguish” (People’s Exhibit 7). The email
35

did not suggest he harbored animosity towards her and certainly did not contain any threats.8 In fact, Mr. Rinaldi said he would rather “harm [him]self then [sic] to ever even disturb [Ms. Shields]” (People’s Exhibit 7).
The email also reflected Mr. Rinaldi’s legitimate purposes for contacting Ms. Shields over the years, including his support for her career and his history with Teri. It even referenced a few cordial interactions that he shared with her and Mr. Henchy over the years (People’s Exhibit 7). Mr. Rinaldi noted too the minimal number of times they had run into each other since they shared the same neighborhood– a fact Ms. Shields corroborated when she said she did not see him for the first four years she lived there (T1:Shields 171). The email illustrates that Mr. Rinaldi did not believe or have any reason to believe that Ms. Shields feared him or that his contact with her was unwanted. Indeed, Mr. Rinaldi recalled Mr. Henchy telling him “not to worry about Brooke, that she is overly protective and private” (People’s Exhibit 7).
Simply put, the email to Jill Fritzo was nothing more than a fervent defense to the charges Mr. Rinaldi faced when Ms. Shields suddenly rejected Mr. Rinaldi’s innocuous contacts and conduct after decades of unobstructed communications.
8The prosecutor tried to ascribe devious intent to Mr. Rinaldi’s reference to Rebecca Schaeffer, an actress killed by an alleged stalker. However, Mr. Rinaldi plainly referenced that situation to explain his understanding of what “stalking” means, both as a matter of law and historically. At most, it was a clumsy, inartful attempt to show why Mr. Rinaldi believed his conduct was actually the furthest thing from stalking.
36

It certainly was not the type of “true threat” that may be criminalized.
The social media and email evidence was constitutionally protected speech that should not have been treated as criminal conduct. Moreover, and contrary to
the People’s purposes, this evidence actually proves that Mr. Rinaldi had several legitimate reasons for contacting Ms. Shields.
All of the other evidence at trial came before Mr. Rinaldi had any reason to believe his communications were unwelcome, and should not be considered as part of the alleged “course of conduct.” In light of the scant evidence following the Henchy warning, the prosecution failed to prove that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a course of conduct with no legitimate purpose or that he knew or had reason to know his actions would be perceived as threatening.
Conduct Preceding the Warnings
Assuming, arguendo, that the conduct preceding the warnings may be considered as part of the course of conduct, it too was entirely legitimate conduct.
Given Mr. Rinaldi’s inspiring experiences with Teri Shields, it was perfectly reasonable for him to believe that Brooke, like her mother, would be interested in helping others by contributing to or associating with his charitable organization. Mr. Rinaldi’s November, 2013, package delivery and December, 2013, follow-up on the request for his charitable foundation were innocuous and certainly not criminal (People’s Exhibit 5).
37

Much of the other alleged conduct was, in essence, nothing more than expressions of praise or support for Ms. Shields or gratitude regarding her mother’s generosity. The interaction at the AOL Build event is one such example (People’s Exhibit 2 at 22:05-24:36). On other occasions, Mr. Rinaldi offered Ms. Shields gifts or benefits and at least one was accepted with gratitude. These acts were not intended to frighten or intimidate her. His November 23, 2013, attempt to return a picture frame that Teri Shields gave him years earlier is a particularly obvious example (T1:Shields 139, T2: Shields 9, 11). Even Ms. Shields acknowledged that most if not all of the correspondence and the encounters began with Mr. Rinaldi offering her gifts (T1: Shields 163). No reasonable factfinder would infer malicious intent from these acts.
The remaining conduct suggested nothing more than Mr. Rinaldi’s presence in a neighborhood where he had lived for nearly 20 years and where he frequented local businesses (T1:Shields 170-71; T2: Shields 13; Zarara 178; People’s Exhibit 8; Defense Exhibit A). On December 8, 2013, for example, there was no indication that Mr. Rinaldi had been standing nearby waiting for Ms. Shields to exit her house, and it is entirely possible that he was there because he lived nearby. Further, neither Ms. Shields nor Mr. McCann suggested that Mr. Rinaldi was unhappy, angry, or threatening in any way (T1:Shields 140-41; T2: McCann 56, 74-75).
None of the acts occurring before Mr. Henchy’s warning were criminal in 38

nature.
Fear of Material Harm Under Penal Law § 120.45(1)
The People also failed to offer sufficient proof that any fear of material
harm Ms. Shields experienced was objectively reasonable. See People v. Dozier, 50 A.D.3d 589 (1st Dept. 2008). Ms. Shields’s decision to go to the police hinged on her assumption, based on prior incidents with people other than Mr. Rinaldi, that “these situations have a tendency to escalate” and that they never get better (T2:Shields 17,47-48). As she explained, other “agitated” and “obsessive” fans had engaged in behavior that became “more dangerous” and her decision to go to the police here was her attempt to prevent such danger (T2:Shields 17). These people, who were arrested, made her “hypersensitive” and nervous. Of course, the de Becker firm had identified 2,930 people as inappropriate pursuers of Ms. Shields during its 33-year representation and recommended that she contact the police for some of them. However, with its advanced threat assessment system, the firm never recommended that she file a complaint against Mr. Rinaldi.
From 2013-2015, Mr. Rinaldi’s conduct did not become more threatening, he simply ran into Ms. Shields more often or reached out more frequently with requests for his charity, among other legitimate purposes. This did not create an objectively reasonable basis for her to fear material harm.
In sum, there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a 39

concerted course of conduct towards Ms. Shields that had no legitimate purpose or that he knew or had reason to know that his communications would be perceived as threatening or cause her to fear for her safety. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the first stalking count and that conviction should be reversed and the accusatory instrument dismissed. See Sweeney, 27 Misc.3d 134(A); cf. also Venson, 47 Misc.3d 92 (defendant did not engage in “the type of intrusive. . . conduct that the anti-stalking statute was aimed to prevent”).
Stalking Under Penal Law § 120.45(2)
The second stalking offense also requires proof of a course of conduct with no legitimate purpose, and the evidence was insufficient as to this count for the aforementioned reasons. It also requires proof that the defendant actually caused material harm to the mental or emotional health of the complainant. The People failed to prove this element too.
The stalking offenses were enacted to address the problem of one person stalking another in a “threatening, frightening or violent way.” See William Donnino, Practice Commentary, Penal Law § 120.40. In describing the prohibited conduct, the Legislature explained, “[T]he unfortunate reality is that stalking victims have been intolerably forced to live in fear of their stalkers.” L. 1999, c. 635 § 2 (emphasis added).
The prosecution failed to offer sufficient evidence that Ms. Shields 40

experienced such extreme harm to her mental or emotional health as a result of Mr. Rinaldi’s actions. Ms. Shields did not change her security protocols or request a bodyguard between 2013 and 2015, and she told the police she did not even want Mr. Rinaldi arrested (T1:Creter 117-122; Shields 263; T2: Shields 4-5; Dash 244-45). She did not seek counseling as a result of Mr. Rinaldi’s behavior, and she did not substantially modify her routines in any way. These factors undermine any claim that she suffered mental or emotional harm.
For these reasons and those referenced at pp. 29-40, the prosecution failed to prove Mr. Rinaldi’s guilt of fourth-degree stalking under Penal Law § 120.45(2).
2. Harassment in the First and Second Degree
A person is guilty of first-degree harassment when he “intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person” by following them, engaging in a course of conduct, or “repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury.” Penal Law § 240.25. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the People failed to prove this offense.
First, Mr. Rinaldi did not at any time intentionally harass Ms. Shields. Although it may usually be inferred that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts, see People v. Lieberman, 3 N.Y.2d 649, 654 (1958), an inference of criminal intent is unwarranted here. Examination of Mr. Rinaldi’s “conduct and the surrounding circumstances” – the typical way to infer intent, see
41

People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301 (1977) – allows no rational inference that he intended to cause Ms. Shields fear of physical harm or to annoy her. See People v. Ubbink, 120 A.D.3d 1574, 1574 (4th Dept. 2014). To the contrary, Mr. Rinaldi’s conduct suggests a desire to thank Ms. Shields, to solicit assistance for his charity, to be hospitable and neighborly, and then to defend himself against false and slanderous accusations.
Much of the prosecution’s evidence suggests that Mr. Rinaldi perceived himself as a “friendly” person, not a “creep,” who had been acquaintances with Ms. Shields for many years and had seen her in the neighborhood but never bothered her (T2:Zarara 105,109,116-17). In the email to Jill Fritzo, Mr. Rinaldi insisted he would sooner harm himself than harm Ms. Shields (People’s Exhibit 7). There is simply no basis to infer that he intended to harass Ms. Shields.
The prosecution’s witnesses generally acknowledged that Mr. Rinaldi was driven by his genuine beliefs in the connection he shared with Ms. Shields because of his relationship with Teri (T2:Shields 6,10; McCann 83; Henchy 215-16). As Mr. Rinaldi had entirely legitimate reasons for contacting Ms. Shields and being near her home, an intention to harass cannot be reasonably inferred. Cf. People v. Coveny, 50 Misc.3d 1, 7 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)(drawing inference from “sheer volume of defendant’s attempted unwanted communications, especially after” he had been warned to stop). Absent an intent to harass or annoy, Mr.
42

Rinaldi could not be guilty of harassment in the first or second degree.
The prosecution also failed to introduce legally sufficient evidence that Mr.
Rinaldi followed Ms. Shields or that he engaged in a course of conduct or engaged in persistent acts that placed her in “reasonable fear of physical injury.” In fact, Ms. Shields conceded that Mr. Rinaldi never threatened physical harm (T2: Shields 163; T2: Shields 5).
“Where reasonable fear is an element of a crime, the fear must be objectively reasonable.” People v. Demisse, 24 A.D.3d 118, 119 (1st Dept. 2005)(internal citations omitted). In Demisse, the evidence was insufficient where, though the defendant’s actions may have caused emotional distress to the public figure victim, his “communications were neither abusive nor hostile in tone or in content” and they “did not convey any implied threat of harm.” Id. There was no evidence at trial that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in any hostile or threatening gestures, and any fear Ms. Shields may have experienced was objectively unreasonable. See People v. Corichi, 195 Misc.2d 518, 519 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2003)(“erratic” behavior unaccompanied by threatening gestures did not engender “reasonable fear of physical injury”); People v. Watson, 32 A.D.3d 1199 (4th Dept. 2006)(evidence that complainants found defendant’s conduct “creepy” was insufficient to establish reasonable fear); Venson, 47 Misc.3d 92 (largely ambiguous behavior, including approaching and following complainant, was not
43

the “unacceptably intrusive behavior” necessary to create reasonable fear).
Mr. Rinaldi was also charged with harassment in the second degree, which
required proof that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts that alarmed or seriously annoyed another person and served “no legitimate purpose.” Penal Law § 240.26(3). The prosecution failed to prove that Mr. Rinaldi harbored the requisite mens rea and that he acted with no legitimate purpose, supra pp. 27-38, 41-43.
Unable to present a clear, compelling case against Mr. Rinaldi, the People offered a mishmash of non-incriminating or ambiguous evidence that was simply “not the stuff that warrants a criminal conviction.” People v. Santos, 38 N.Y.2d 173, 176 (1975). The evidence was legally insufficient to establish harassment in the first or second degree, and Mr. Rinaldi’s convictions must be reversed and the accusatory instrument dismissed.
B. The Verdicts Were Against the Weight of the Evidence
Mr. Rinaldi’s convictions were also against the weight of the evidence. As the only witness who claimed to have seen Mr. Rinaldi on many occasions prior to, during, and after the alleged criminal conduct here, Brooke Shields was the star witness at trial. In her eyes, Mr. Rinaldi was a persistent, deranged individual, always lurking nearby, whose behavior had been inappropriate for decades before it crossed some unidentifiable line, escalating to potentially dangerous levels
44

between November, 2013 and May, 2015. Yet, the objective facts presented by all of the prosecution’s other witnesses collectively suggest that Ms. Shields was simply not credible. Her “hypervigilant” focus on other “stalkers” colored her opinions about Mr. Rinaldi. Indeed, this hypersensitivity also colored her testimony in devastating fashion. As the People failed to provide credible evidence that Mr. Rinaldi engaged in a course of conduct directed at Ms. Shields, with no legitimate purpose, which placed her in fear of or caused her material harm, the stalking convictions were against the weight of the evidence. Since there was no credible evidence that Mr. Rinaldi intended to harass or annoy Ms. Shields, or that she reasonably feared physical injury, the harassment convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
The period of criminal conduct here supposedly occurred between November 2013 and May 2015. Ms. Shields claimed that prior to that span, she pointed Mr. Rinaldi out to Mr. Henchy and instructed him to tell Mr. Rinaldi that he was making them “uncomfortable” and he should stay away from them (T1:Shields 137-38). Mr. Henchy disputed this, saying instead that Ms. Shields never introduced him to Mr. Rinaldi, he was only generally aware of Mr. Rinaldi, and the first time he ever met him was March 4, 2014 (T2: Henchy 202-04).
Ms. Shields testified that on November 8, 2013, Mr. Rinaldi delivered a box that contained a “gift to [her] children”– “little stuffed animals”– that made her
45

feel “violated and terrified” that established “barriers” were breaking down (T1: Shields 136-38,164). Though Ms. Shields knew that the box contained explanatory letters, she refused to read them (T1:Shields 164; T2:Shields 32).
Had Ms. Shields read the generic form letters, she would have learned that the single teddy bear inside was not offered as a gift to her children, but rather as a token to be returned for creative charitable purposes, for Mr. Rinaldi’s charity (T2: McCann 68-72; People’s Exhibits 5, 6). The letters did not even reference Ms. Shields’s children. Her refusal to even learn the actual intended purpose of the bear and her dramatic overreaction illustrates the critical flaw with the People’s case– Ms. Shields’s obstinate and irrational opinions about Mr. Rinaldi’s actions.
It is worth noting too that Mr. McCann, her personal assistant for 12 years, had never even heard of Mr. Rinaldi before this package was delivered to the house (T2:McCann 53, 68,74). This significantly undermines Ms. Shields’s suggestion that she was constantly looking out for Mr. Rinaldi or even that she thought about him at all prior to November, 2013.
Other than his encounter with Mr. Rinaldi on November 23, 2013, Mr. Zarara never saw him during the two-year period in which Mr. Rinaldi allegedly stalked and harassed Ms. Shields (T2:Zarara 188). Mr. Zarara had also never seen him in the preceding five years he worked for Ms. Shields (T2:Zarara 103). Mr. McCann never saw Mr. Rinaldi between December 8, 2013, and May 5, 2015, and
46

Ms. Shields never mentioned him during that span (T2:McCann 76-78). This too suggests Ms. Shields did not live in a state of fear during that period. Nanny Kelly Corrigan, who worked in the Shields home four days a week since 2012, saw Mr. Rinaldi just one time between November 2013 and December 2015 and never noticed his car parked outside (T2:Corrigan 93-94, 96-97). The fact that these witnesses never saw Mr. Rinaldi is particularly notable where he lived in the neighborhood and frequented local businesses.
On March 4, 2014, Mr. Rinaldi asked Mr. Henchy if he had “spooked” Ms. Shields the last time he saw her. This was more than three years after they had moved into the neighborhood where Mr. Rinaldi lived, and it was the first time Henchy had seen him other than outside a Broadway theater (T2: Henchy 192-93, 202-04). This was also the last time Mr. Henchy saw Mr. Rinaldi near his house or anywhere else before the trial (T2:Henchy 211, 218).
The AOL Build event in November, 2014, was, again, nothing more than an opportunity for Mr. Rinaldi to express his feelings about Teri Shields at an event about Teri Shields. It also reveals an interesting exchange in which Mr. Rinaldi referenced a conversation he had with Ms. Shields and Mr. Henchy years earlier, when she was pregnant, and how he gave them a gift. Ms. Shields recalled the conversation (id. at 22:40-22:50). This exchange demonstrates, as clearly as anything could, how Ms. Shields’s hypersensitivity is the real issue in this case, not
47

any alleged ill-intended conduct by Mr. Rinaldi.
On May 5, 2015, Ms. Shields thought Mr. Rinaldi tweeted about having
seen her by the “West Side highway” working out in the park, a fact that deeply unsettled her because it implied he had followed her (T1:Shields 152). In fact, Mr. Rinaldi’s tweet did not mention the highway or the park, it simply said that he saw her “work out partner drop[] [her] home,” which does not suggest he had followed her (People’s Exhibit 6). Ms. Shields later conceded that she did not even read any of Mr. Rinaldi’s tweets that morning (T2: Shields 37). Like the incident with the teddy bear, Ms. Shields overreacted without availing herself of the actual content of Mr. Rinaldi’s communications.
Throughout her testimony, Ms. Shields repeatedly implied that Mr. Rinaldi had mental illness, was “off balance,” unstable, or otherwise incapable of “rational thought or communication,” and that his behavior, like her many other stalkers, had escalated and crossed certain lines (T1:Shields 138,142-43,147-48,154,169; T2: Shields 4,11,17,19,47-48,50). She claimed his communications caused her to feel an “electric jolt,” “fearful,” “on edge,” “preoccupied,” and “vulnerable” (T1: Shields 147-48, 155).
While Ms. Shields’s beliefs were genuine, they were not reasonable. While her recollections were firm, they were not credible. None of Mr. Rinaldi’s conduct posed a threat to Ms. Shields, and no reasonable person would perceive it as such.
48

Ms. Shields’s observations, further, were simply not supported by any other objective evidence. Though she believed that she saw Mr. Rinaldi and his vehicle numerous times after the AOL Build appearance and before the May 5, 2015, incident, nobody else did. Neither her babysitter, nor her social media advisor, her personal assistant, or her husband saw Mr. Rinaldi near their house in those six months. Neither Detective Dash nor Lt. Blake, who worked right across the street, recalled seeing Mr. Rinaldi or his car outside the precinct anytime prior to May 5, 2015 (T2:Dash 244-45;Blake 258).
Mr. Henchy saw Mr. Rinaldi in the neighborhood just one time, on March 4, 2014. Mr. McCann saw Mr. Rinaldi just twice, on December 8, 2013, and May 5, 2015. Mr. Zarara saw Mr. Rinaldi just once, on November 23, 2013. Ms. Corrigan saw Mr. Rinaldi just once, in December, 2013. In the 24-month span at issue, people other than Brooke Shields saw Mr. Rinaldi in the neighborhood, where he lived, just five times and nobody apparently saw him in the three or four years they lived there prior to November, 2013 (T1: Shields 171).
This Court, sitting as thirteenth juror, must conclude that acquittal would not have been unreasonable and that the trial court failed to give the evidence the weight it deserved. The convictions should be reversed, and the accusatory instrument dismissed. See Burwell, 53 N.Y.2d at 824.
49

CONCLUSION
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN, THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DISMISSED.
David Bernstein Of Counsel September 2017
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT S. DEAN
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT
The brief was prepared in WordPerfect X7, using a 14-point Garamond font, except for footnotes, which appear in a 12-point Garamond font, and totaled 12,181 words.
50

TATTOOS
1. mom. left arm. +
2. rosary. right arm.  for Rob Reiner's A FEW GOOD MEN.
3. MLVC/ MAVERICK upper right  Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone.  
    'Like A Prayer' CD Artwork by my friend Christopher Ciccone. 
    MAVERICK. Madonna's Company.
4. mer. left arm.  dad.
5. Pices/ Sagitarian middle of my back.  My Dad + Me.
6. Kelly. right arm. Kelly. 
7. Frances. left arm.  Kelly.
8. Anthony.  right forearm.  Anthony.
9. Rowan.  left forearm. 
10. GM.