Of Dead Sea Scrolls and Criminal Impersonation

by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact

Golb v. Attorney General, No. 16-0452-pr (Jacobs, Leval, Raggi), arises out of unusual facts—forged emails by a proponent of one side of an academic dispute—and reaches an unusual result.  On habeas review, the Second Circuit found that it only owed partial AEDPA deference, and overturned an number of convictions after finding a New York statute unconstitutionally overbroad.  In this case, an advocate of one side of the unresolved academic debate about the authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls went too far and engaged in illegal acts that brought about his own criminal conviction.  On its face, the decision applies important aspects of New York and federal constitutional law.  However, in a larger sense, the law most relevant to the decision may be Sayre’s Third Law of Politics, which provides that academic policies are the most vicious form of politics because the stakes are so low.[1]

Judge Jacobs explains the stakes at the start of his opinion:  Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, the ancient documents discovered in the 1940s and 1950s in caves near Jerusalem?  These sacred documents have become famous since their discovery; among them are some of the oldest surviving manuscripts of portions of the Hebrew Bible.  While most academics believe that they were written by a Jewish sect known as the Essenes, who lived near Jerusalem, others, including Norman Golb, have asserted that there were many disparate authors of the scrolls.  As presented by the Circuit, the archeological question underlying the appeal remains unresolved.

The habeas petitioner in this appeal, Raphael Golb, was Norman Golb’s son, and he supported his father’s theory.  In addition to more conventional forms of advocacy, Raphael Golb created fake gmail addresses for well-known academics who supported the Essene Theory and used them to send emails suggesting that Golb’s father was right or that his father’s critics were plagiarizers.  For example, using an email address larry.schiffman@gmail.com, Golb sent emails to NYU graduate students, the NYU dean and provost, and the NYU student newspaper pretending to be the scholar Lawrence Schiffman “admitting” that he had used other’s work without attribution.

Golb was convicted by a New York state jury of fourteen counts of criminal impersonation in the second degree and ten counts of criminal forgery in the third degree.  He appealed all the way to the New York Court of Appeals, which threw out several of the impersonation charges and held that the statute had to be limited to impersonations of an assumed character with the intent to cause pecuniary or reputational injury, not mere annoyance (some press coverage is here).  Following his win, Golb moved for reargument, saying that he was entitled to a new trial on all of the criminal impersonation charges under United States v. Shuttlesworth, 382 U.S. 87 (1965).  Shuttlesworth held when a state’s highest court narrows an unconstitutionally overbroad statute, the defendant is entitled to a new trial using the new, narrowed interpretation.  But the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reargument, and the lower state courts refused to consider a retrial on procedural grounds.

Golb’s Shuttlesworth claim presented the rare instance where a federal court considering a habeas challenge didn’t owe “AEDPA deference” to the state courts.  That’s because Golb’s Shuttlesworth claim didn’t come into existence until after the Court of Appeals narrowed the criminal impersonation statute, but after that point no state court ruled on the merits of whether Golb was entitled to a retrial.  Looking to the merits of the Shuttlesworth claim, the Second Circuit found that some of the fake emails were unmistakably sent with the intent to cause reputational harm, obviating the need for retrial.  On another handful of emails, however, the Court concluded that Golb’s intent was “obscure” and the communications were “so mild and puerile that [they] might have been intended to embarrass” rather than seriously injure.  For example, one email said that “Bart,” referring to Professor Bart Ehrman, “has gone and put his foot in his mouth again.”  Another impersonated a different scholar, who supposedly sent an email referring to Golb’s father as “filth.”  Because the jury might have convicted Golb for causing mere annoyance, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the statute, habeas relief was granted.

Golb’s facial challenge to the criminal impersonation statute fared less well.  Here, the New York Court of Appeals did reach the merits of the issue, so the Second Circuit owed deference to its ruling.  Golb claimed the impersonation statute unconstitutionally criminalized parody, but Judge Jacobs found there was no basis to think faked emails are meant to be funny:  “While it is true that a parody enjoys First Amendment protection notwithstanding that not everybody will get the joke, it is also true that parody depends on somebody getting the joke.”  The defendant, in Judge Jacobs’ view, “misunderstands the genre” of parody.[2]  A vagueness challenge was rejected as well.

Golb did succeed, however, in narrowing the criminal forgery statute, which criminalizes “falsely mak[ing], complet[ing] or alter[ing] a written instrument” when done “with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another.”  The Second Circuit held that, in order to save the statute from overbreadth, the term deceive must be interpreted to mean cheat or defraud, so that the statute always requires an intent to injure.  Otherwise, “[p]seudonymous product reviews would be criminalized, as would the use of false names by corporate or governmental whistleblowers to avoid detection and retaliation. Even the use of a pen-name is sometimes a benign deception.”  Turning to Golb’s criminal forgery convictions, the Court held that five were based on conduct so clearly intended to cause harm that the convictions could stand.  Habeas relief was granted on the remaining four, however, because the jury may have convicted on the basis of deception alone.

This decision is worth a read for those interested in a host of different subjects:  the AEDPA, the constitutional limits of the New York forgery statute, and the controversy over the authorship of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  From a legal perspective, the opinion of the Court may be most cited for its narrowing of the New York criminal forgery statute.  As the Court noted, many people have used pseudonyms for legitimate purposes, and the Circuit’s decision makes clear that such use will not be punished with the criminal law.  There must be more than intent to deceive; there must be intent to cheat, defraud, or deprive by deception.  The absence of such intent in connection with some of the controversial emails at the heart of this appeal led to the reversal of certain counts of conviction.


[1] William Sayre of Columbia University was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as making this statement; some on the internet say its true attribution is uncertain.  See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/18/acad-politics/ (last visited September 12, 2017).

[2] And Judge Jacobs would know!  Not every federal judge is described in the newspaper of record as a “funny, irreverent person with a love of history.”  Benjamin Weiser, “Hang Him Up? The Bad Judge and His Image,” N.Y. Times (Jan. 27, 2009) (referring to the late Judge Charles L. Brieant, Jr. of the Southern District of New York as a “funny, irreverent person with a love of history” and adding “[t]hat is a fair description of Judge Jacobs as well”).

 

Written by:

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact
more
less

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.