Death on the River Page 14

  Portale admitted to pushing the envelope by providing videos to the media but insisted he was not violating any professional rules of conduct. Rather, he said, he was merely countering prejudicial information released during earlier press conferences. “The media has turned this into a confession when, in fact, after an eleven-hour interrogation, she didn’t confess to killing Vincent Viafore. She never did.”

  Judge Freehill would not infringe on Angelika’s First Amendment rights, but he forbade Portale from being present during the interview. “She has a right to sit down with a reporter and speak. Ms. Graswald must understand, she’s damaging her own case, to a point.” Turning to the defendant, he added, “You’ve got to be careful what you say.”

  When 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas sat down with Angelika, the reporter repeated that warning: “It can be a risky for a defendant like yourself to talk publicly before trial. Why did you decide to do this interview?”

  “I needed a chance to let people know that I’m innocent. I’m being accused of murder, which I’m not capable of doing,” Angelika told her. “I’m not a killer. I am a good person.”

  They talked together in the room normally used as the jail’s chapel—it was where Angelika attended Bible study. The guards had allowed Angelika to wear a more flattering top over her orange jumpsuit.

  Vargas turned the conversation to Angelika’s remarks to law enforcement that she’d wanted to be “free” from Vince. “What I meant was I wanted to be free from the lifestyle that we had,” Angelika explained. “The nightlife, strip clubs, the threesomes. I didn’t want any part of that. I wanted to be free from that. But as far as he goes, I wanted to be with him.”

  CHAPTER TWENTY

  A high-profile murder trial like Angelika’s demanded funds beyond her reach, for attorneys, experts, testing, and other miscellaneous expenses. Her parents had scraped together whatever they could—even sending their life savings—and other members of her home community helped, too. Richard Portale started a campaign on FundRazr, “Justice for Angelika,” with a goal of raising $75,000 for her defense. As of October 2015, only $270 had been raised.

  Angelika’s parents planted a tree in Latvia in Vince’s memory and sent condolences to Vince’s mother. In jail, Angelika attended classes, joined a Bible study group, and corresponded with her family, sending letters and artwork.

  * * *

  Sean Von Clauss sat in front of his television on the evening of November 6, 2015. He’d missed the 48 Hours episode about the case and still entertained a speck of niggling doubt about Angelika’s guilt. As he watched the show now for the first time, every shred of uncertainty melted away as he witnessed the toxicity of her words and attitude in the clips of her interrogation. “[I’m] disgusted and sick to my stomach,” he said after the show ended. Later, he poured out his emotions in an email: “My worst nightmare is true! She admitted that she paddled away from Vinny. She said her ‘demon’ side told her not to help him. It’s so unreal. I can’t believe that little peanut could take away our beloved brother and friend. And in a cruel way. Freezing to death, only to drown. He must have been so horrified seeing her paddle away from him. I pray she didn’t taunt him, but I’m sure she did—cursing him and laughing at him while he tried to stay afloat, clinging to his kayak freezing.”

  The tragic accident had had an enormous impact on Sean’s life. “I can’t sleep, and when I do, I keep waking up to Vinny screaming for her to help. I’m so sorry, Vinny. Almost every night, that same dream, of her taunting him and smiling as he is freezing and begging her to help. What a monster!”

  After watching the episode, Sean had no more doubts about Angelika’s guilt. “I know after hearing her statements that she did it. She planned it. She seduced him through sex and naughty pictures and she deliberately brought one life vest. That part of the interview has me troubled. She claims she didn’t own any, but yet the day in question, Vinny said she should wear one? She planned it. I know it. Just can’t prove it. I personally think once she knew of the $250,000 insurance, she started plotting.”

  * * *

  Over in Surrogate Court in Dutchess County, Laura Rice filed a request that Angelika be prohibited from collecting Vince’s insurance money or any of his assets. The document stated that the family intended to file a wrongful death suit. Judge James Pagones signed an order to that effect on November 20, 2015, blocking any payouts from the State Farm and Zurich American life insurance policies.

  In court, Angelika usually allowed the attorneys to do all the talking. Back in Freehill’s court for another pretrial hearing on December 21, Angelika finally spoke up. With a smile on her face, she wished the judge a Merry Christmas.

  The judge, however, had more pressing matters on his mind. He complained to the lawyers on both sides of the courtroom that “the currents [weren’t] moving too swiftly in this case.” Observers wondered what actions he would take to accelerate the trial.

  The next step in the pretrial dance was scheduled and rescheduled several times, but finally everyone returned to the courtroom on February 25, when Judge Freehill responded to several motions from the defense. Portale and Chartier had objected to all ten search warrants issued in the case. However, the court ruled that the defense lacked standing to challenge the two warrants for two cell-phone records and the three for Facebook, Apple iCloud, and Yahoo.

  The defense had also requested that the indictment against their client be dismissed or that the charges be reduced. The judge ruled against them on both.

  A number of motions remained, including the most pivotal one: the defense’s desire for a Huntley Hearing, a pretrial review of the manner in which the police had obtained statements from the defendant. In this proceeding, the judge must determine if the responses by the defendant were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. If he decided otherwise, the state could not submit that evidence to the jury at trial.

  Portale wanted all eleven hours of interrogation video suppressed, along with the statements made by Angelika the night of the incident and at the barracks on April 28 and on the island on April 29. This evidence was vital to the state’s case. If the judge ruled in favor of the defense, no one was certain if the prosecutors could move forward. Freehill scheduled the hearings for May 2, 2016, more than a year after Angelika’s arrest.

  CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

  Of course, the May date for the hearing did not stand. This delay was caused by one of Portale’s clients, whose trial started April 26. Angelika’s hearing was rescheduled for June 6, 2016.

  * * *

  A Huntley Hearing was specific to the state of New York, but the legal precept was common, though referred to by other names in different state courtrooms. This type of court procedure exists to determine the admissibility of evidence, including confessions. The practice was established following a 1965 New York Appeals Court decision that brought the state into accordance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling the year before.

  The issues considered by judges during a Huntley Hearing included whether or not the individual was in custody at the time of the statement, if Miranda Rights were appropriately waived, and if the defendant had made his comments of his or her own free will. The judge needed to rule on the voluntariness based on the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.

  In many cases, a confession could be considered nothing more than the icing on the evidentiary cake. It can be used to corroborate witness testimony or forensic evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, blood spatter, or other concrete items. In the Graswald case, however, the confession was the linchpin of the state’s argument. No witnesses existed. No fingerprints were relevant. No blood evidence was left behind. Without the words from Angelika’s lips, the prosecutors had only flimsy circumstantial evidence that would be unlikely to convince jurors of her guilt.

  For that reason, the outcome of the hearing was vital for both sides in the courtroom, and it all rested in Judge Freehill’s hands. On the one hand, without Angelika’s statements to law enforcement the poss
ibility that the state would prevail and secure a guilty verdict were minimal at best and the defense’s chances of a win were magnified tenfold. On the other hand, if the judge found the taped interview admissible, the impact of Angelika’s words and behavior during the interview had the potential to swing a jury to a guilty verdict. The dramatic import of the Huntley Hearing was staggering.

  * * *

  On June 6, a harsh tone of contention dominated Judge Freehill’s courtroom. To begin, the defense complained about what they’d requested and had not received from the state. In all likelihood, they knew full well the reasons for any delay or denial in the delivery of materials, but Portale and Chartier were playing the victim card in hopes of manipulating the judge. The state responded that some of the requested recordings did not exist and others no longer existed because they were temporary in nature.

  The defense seemed to believe that if they could get wins on the other pending motions, they might swing the judge’s thinking to their point of view on the Huntley issue. Despite knowing that the Huntley hearing was the basis for that day’s court appearance, they attempted to argue other outstanding motions, including a motion to reargue, instigating a heated exchange with Freehill.

  “In that motion to reargue,” the judge said, “I don’t believe that there was anything brought up about the Huntley Hearing issue, and that’s what we’re going to proceed with today. And then there will be a subsequent decision on your motion to reargue. I’m ready to proceed with a Huntley Hearing. I’ve heard enough.”

  Portale tried to delay the proceedings by pushing the court into a hearing on a different motion altogether. The judge blocked his attempt. Chartier stepped up to the plate, pitching the possibility of constitutional issues over the unreasonable search or seizure of Angelika’s possessions, and Angelika’s inability to leave police custody before she’d been arrested. “I’m just trying to streamline this,” he argued.

  “No, you’re not, Mr. Chartier,” the judge snapped. “It doesn’t appear to me you’re trying to streamline this. I’m ready to proceed with the Huntley Hearing and that’s what we’re gonna do. Any motions you want to make, we can continue them later.”

  Portale pushed again, telling the judge that the second issue mentioned by Chartier went “hand in hand with the Huntley issue.”

  “I’m having the hearing first. I’m not deciding at this point.”

  With all the other legal issues set aside by the judge, the Huntley Hearing began.

  ADA Julie Mohl called the first witness: Officer Stephen Bedetti of the Town of New Windsor Police Department and the Town of Cornwall Police Department, one of the first responders to the river on April 19, 2015. Bedetti described his initial encounter with the defendant in the rescue boat, onshore, and at the ambulance. He said he had not introduced himself to Angelika by name, but he’d been wearing a uniform and she knew he was with the police.

  Bedetti related what Angelika had told him about that afternoon’s kayak trip, the loss of her cell phone, her possession of the car keys, and his aborted attempt to search for the phone in her backpack.

  “How did you end your conversation with the defendant?” ADA Mohl asked.

  “She asked me to bring her back to her car.”

  “How was her demeanor when you were speaking to her, at the landing?”

  “Calm, very. I mean, like you and I are talking right now.”

  “And how was her demeanor at the hospital?”

  “A little anxious to get out of there, honestly. She didn’t want to be there anymore.”

  “When you were speaking to her, Officer, did you have trouble understanding anything that she said?”

  “No,” he said, shaking his head.

  “Did she ever ask you to clarify anything that you said to her?”

  “No, not once.”

  “And when you were speaking, were her answers appropriate to your questions and to the conversation you were having?”

  “Yeah, I was getting it.”

  “And, Officer, this may sound like a silly question, but what language were you two conversing in?”

  “English.”

  “The whole time?”

  “Yes.”

  After the prosecutor had completed her questioning, she turned the witness over to the defense. Before starting, Portale asked for a moment to review material he’d received that morning and said, “Judge, may I? While I review this, Miss Graswald is in chains, her hands are in chains, her waist is in chains, her legs are in chains. Could she be unchained for the purposes of this hearing?”

  “Her hands can be,” the judge allowed.

  “Thank you,” Portale said. He then submitted a handful of defense exhibits, labeled “L,” “M,” “N,” and “O.” He walked the witness through his professional career, first as a dispatcher, followed by sixteen years with the New Windsor Police Department as a patrolman.

  Portale then drew Bedetti’s attention to exhibit L. “Are those your handwritten notes?” he asked.

  “They are.”

  “Do you recall where you were when you took those notes?

  “At St. Luke’s Hospital.”

  “And you had a notebook?”

  “I did not,” Bedetti said. He explained that his notebook had been in his partner’s car and that he’d used his ticket book card instead.

  “When you responded to the call relating to this case, did you think to grab a notebook?”

  “No,” Bedetti said. “I’m a volunteer fireman. I know seconds save lives. So, I figured the fastest I got there, the fastest I would be able to help out. If I had to jump in the water or something or get on a boat. So, no, that was the furthest thing from my mind.”

  The defense attorney then presented exhibit O, the incident report Bedetti had submitted. “When did you fill that out?”

  “I actually filled out most of that report that night when I came back. And then after learning the, I guess I’m gonna call it, the victim’s name later on down the road, I actually edited the report. I had to put his real name in there. It was wrong. I had put him in there as Victor and I guess it was Vincent. So, I went back in and added it. I indicated the date I edited it.”

  Portale moved on to Bedetti’s comments about Angelika’s behavior the night of the accident.

  “You testified on direct about my client’s demeanor. Do you recall that? And you were making some opinions about her demeanor?”

  “No, well, I just stated the facts, what I observed.”

  “What did you observe?”

  “She [was] like you and I are talking right now,” the police officer said.

  “What does that mean?” Portale asked.

  “Just matter-of-fact. Not—didn’t show any emotion. Just oddly acting.”

  “You were aware that the individual she was kayaking with was still missing, correct, yes?”

  “You know, I think I [could] only guess at that point, because I know there was a rescue boat that had come back and I know there was other people out in the river. So, at that point, could he have been picked up? Yeah, I’m sure he could. I wasn’t with the command post and everything at that point because I was talking to her. So, to sit here and say I was actually aware that he was missing at the point, I could just only assume that he was.”

  “And she was the only person that you encountered, out of the two people in the kayak?”

  “She was the last one with him, yes.”

  Portale then badgered him about the water temperature and his lack of knowledge about Angelika’s medical condition after being rescued. Bedetti, however, insisted repeatedly that he had no knowledge of the water temperature, since he had never gone into the river, and was unaware of any medical diagnosis or treatment.

  For some reason, Portale just couldn’t let go of that question. “So the answer was that you don’t know what she was being treated for.”

  “I have no idea what her actual medical treatment was, no.”

  “So,
if I ask you a yes or no question, do you think you could try to answer it with a yes or no?” Portale said dryly.

  “Sure.”

  “Okay, great. In your sixteen years on the job as a police officer, have you encountered people who have been suffering from hypothermia before?”

  ‘Yes.”

  “About how many times?”

  “Maybe two or three,” Bedetti answered. “That’s just in my police career.”

  “What are the symptoms of hypothermia, if you know?”

  “It depends on how long you are in there, yes, but I mean, obviously, it’s very cold, confused, palish. I guess some people could react differently than others, but I have never encountered this type of hypothermia.”

  “What type is that?” Portale asked, his exasperation evident in the arch of his eyebrows.

  “Just like you and I are talking right now.”

  “You have never encountered it?”

  “I have never seen it, no.”

  “And have you encountered, in your sixteen years as a police officer, individuals who had just experienced a loss, a tragic loss?”

  “Oh, yes,” Bedetti said.

  “Are you aware of the stages of grief?”

  “Yeah. I mean, I would say that I have seen people who have lost people in front of them or—”

  Portale interrupted. “My question is: Are you aware of the stages of grief?”

  “I don’t know the actual terms of them, no. I wouldn’t know that. I just know, me being a human, how I react.”

  “You know how you react?” Portale asked skeptically.

  “Uh-huh.”

  “So, when you were describing Miss Graswald’s demeanor, you were describing it and judging it as you would react, correct?”

  “No. As I’ve seen other people react.”