Judge Freehill ruled that the state could not present evidence regarding the contradictory statements Angelika had made to Officer Bedetti about the whereabouts of her cell phone, nor could they submit anything Angelika had said in the car when she rode from the Newburgh waterfront to the state police barracks on April 29.
As for the eleven-hour interrogation video, the judge ruled that the majority of it was admissible. However, he blocked the portion of the conversation with a Russian interpreter “because a finding … [could not] be made that the statements were voluntary.”
Relief wafted from the prosecution table like a sigh. Had the ruling gone the other way, trying Angelika for second-degree murder would have been a quixotic quest. Without the defendant’s own damning words, the chance of a guilty verdict was slim to infinitesimal.
The defense was disappointed by the decision, but Portale still had another maneuver in his back pocket, ready to play when the time was right.
The judge wrapped up by scheduling jury selection for the trial to begin on February 14, 2017, as well as another pretrial hearing on January 23.
In due course, jury selection was moved to March. But days before the new date, the defense threw another obstacle into the timetable by filing a notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence, based on an examination of Angelika in July 2015. Forensic psychologist Marc Janoson, who conducted the analysis, had more than thirty years of experience in the field of psychological assessment and had testified frequently in the courtroom.
Angelika’s legal team alleged that the police had coerced a confession during her long interview at the barracks. They argued that Janoson would testify at trial that Angelika had “exhibited traits—such as higher levels of suggestibility—that would render her vulnerable to producing a false confession.” In the psychologist’s report, filed in court, he assessed that Angelika was afflicted with “paranoid mania” and possessed “many of the known psychological characteristics of persons who make false confessions.” Janoson found Angelika to be “manic, inflated and grandiose, impulsive and lacking in judgement.” He wrote: “This lack of judgement and tendency to run off at the mouth is likely what happened during her interrogation. Her overactive, energetic, and self-dramatizing behaviors may explain why she posted a photo doing a cartwheel after her fiancé’s death.”
Using her responses to a psychometric testing tool, he believed she “had learned to numb herself emotionally after having had traumatic experiences with other people” and that she was “rated as not being sadistic, cruel, vindictive, predatory, controlling/dominating, or particularly aggressive.”
Prosecutor David Byrne objected strongly, citing law requiring that the defense give notice of intent within thirty days of their not guilty plea. He argued that Portale “never gave the people the required notice. He chose to keep us in the dark … I don’t see any good cause.” Byrne went on to ask the judge to consider imposing sanctions on the defense team.
In their legal filing to fight against the use of Janoson’s testimony, ADA John Geidel wrote: “When an extremely late notice is filed, the principles of fairness and time efficiency have been eradicated.” The prosecution went on to argue that, because they had not been able to evaluate Angelika in the same time frame, any analysis performed now would be “rendered useless.”
Part of the prosecution’s countermeasure to stop the defense’s psychiatric testimony was a report from their own forensic psychiatrist, Sandra Antoniak, from May 2016. She’d reviewed Angelika’s medical records, her jail violations records, and other documents to reach her conclusions. She believed that Angelika was mentally normal at the time she was arrested but had been determined to be a suicide risk because the extreme nature of her recent experiences and her reaction to them.
Antoniak alleged that the length of time between Angelika’s evaluation by Janoson and the submission of the filing “would render it impossible for the people’s expert to reach a meaningful conclusion regarding false confession.” In other words, the state could not accurately assess if Angelika was faking a mental illness or not. After two years of incarceration, Angelika’s memory would have faded and her state of mind would not be the same.
* * *
Portale, however, claimed that he did indeed have good cause to file when he had. It came about, the defense attorney claimed, because the prosecution had “poached” an expert the defense planned to use and “intentionally” withheld evidence, referring to the videotape of the interrogation in which the audio had been enhanced.
The defense insisted that if the testimony was left out their client would be deprived due process of law, making any trial verdict defective and subject to an overturning on appeal. Judge Freehill ruled that the “conscious decision to withhold the report of the forensic psychologist [was] not justified.” Nonetheless, he allowed Angelika’s attorneys to proceed with a false confession defense and file notice of psychiatric evidence. He added that “the people will be given the opportunity to examine Miss Graswald, as is their right.” With that, the judge announced a trial date of June 13 and warned the attorneys to stick to it. “We’re going to be bringing in a great influx of jurors, so this date … it’s very important to keep it.”
Wrapping up court matters, the defense said that they had given the state all of the material from the forensic psychologist, except for the final report, which they had not yet received. The prosecution requested a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) waiver for Graswald in order to access her previous psychiatric history. They also renewed their request to subpoena ABC News and News 12 for broadcast tapes and unaired footage of interviews with Angelika—before and after her arrest—to aid in their psychiatric evaluation.
In May, the defense confirmed that they intended to prove at trial that Angelika had falsely confessed to killing her fiancé. The prosecution’s psychological expert was scheduled to deliver a report by the end of July. The June date of the trial was pushed to August 15. At times, it was difficult for the family to believe that it would ever come to an end.
* * *
On July 17, 2017, the parties met in court. It appeared as if the trial was on track to begin the next month. According to defense attorney Richard Portale, prosecutors had approached him that week with an offer to drop the charges against his client to manslaughter. He said, however, that he turned it down, because he wouldn’t accept a deal unless it allowed Angelika to be released before the end of the year.
But on Monday, July 24, everything changed.
Deputies escorted Angelika into the courtroom, wearing an orange jumpsuit with a long-sleeved T-shirt underneath. Her long ponytail hung down over the shoulder onto the front of her body.
The district attorney’s office announced that, after extensive consultation with Vince’s family, they had reached a plea bargain deal with the defendant. The revised charge: criminally negligent homicide. This meant that the defendant did not intentionally cause the victim’s death, but the accused’s actions or inactions had created a risk that was not justifiable.
Prior to this agreement, Angelika had faced second-degree murder and manslaughter charges, which would have resulted in a sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. The sentence she faced with the new charge was short—fifteen months to four years.
For nearly two years, Angelika had proclaimed her absolute innocence, but with this deal she was now willing to acknowledge some degree of responsibility in Vince’s death.
The judge asked for her plea.
“Guilty,” she said.
“You are pleading guilty voluntarily?” Freehill confirmed.
“Yes, Your Honor,” Angelika answered.
He then asked if she understood that by accepting this agreement she was agreeing to abandon her right to “appeal both the conviction and the ultimate sentence to a higher court for review.” That meant, he said, that she was waiving her “right to appeal and that after you plead and are sentenced, no further review
of the plea and sentence will occur, and the plea and sentence will be final and irrevocable.”
Angelika agreed.
She admitted to criminal negligence by removing a drain plug from Vince’s kayak, knowing that the weather was dangerous and being aware of the size of the waves. She also acknowledged that she’d known the water temperature was forty degrees and that the locking clip on one of his paddles was missing. She agreed that she’d known Vince was not wearing a life jacket or a wet suit. She acknowledged that all those things created a risk of death and that she had failed to perceive it. By the end of her admissions, she was sobbing, her hands covering her nose and mouth.
The judge asked, “His kayak took on water and began to sink, correct?”
“Yes,” she said. She stared hard at the floor by her feet.
He set her sentencing for November 1, 2017. In October, that date was delayed by a week.
On the way out of the courtroom, Mary Ann Viafore did not stand still for an interview. In passing, she told the press, “I miss my son—that’s what’s running through my heart.” Across the country, every mother’s heart clenched in response to her pain.
CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE
The New York Post made their feelings about the plea deal clear in a headline that read: “A Light Paddling After Guilty Plea.” Many who remembered Vince in the Poughkeepsie area agreed, feeling betrayed by the legal system.
The day after Angelika’s guilty plea, Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler called a news conference in an attempt to justify the agreement and point to the silver lining in the cloud of justice. “Yesterday, as you are aware,… [Angelika] pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide on the agreement that she would be sentenced to the maximum prison sentence for the charge of one and one-third years to four years in state prison.
“There is little direct precedent, if any, in New York, for a homicide conviction for removing a plug in a kayak. The kayak used was not designed for river use, such as in the Hudson River, and was considered an inferior model. The victim was also likely aware of the water conditions, the temperature; he knew he was not wearing a life jacket or a wet suit—facts that the jury might use in weighing the victim’s state of mind in the matter. Also, alcohol was present.
“The district attorney’s office purchased a kayak identical to the one the victim had and conducted experiments with the state police and experts—may I add—extensive experiments, leading us to conclude [that] in rough water, the kayak would fill with water if the plug was removed and the occupant was the same height and weight as the victim. When the kayak was filled with water, its performance specifications would be diminished. Notwithstanding those experiments, during the course of the investigation, a picture that predates the homicide was found with the victim in the water without having a plug in it.”
Hoovler went on to discuss the late submission of the psychiatric evidence implying a false confession. He said that the year and a half that had lapsed since Angelika’s arrest had given her sufficient time to prepare for an examination with a state-appointed mental health expert, rendering any new determination useless.
Richard Portale also expressed his ambivalence. He said he’d had to consider the potential of a long sentence for his client if the case moved to trial. “We knew we had a good case and we knew they had a good case in a lot of ways. As worried as Hoovler was about an acquittal, Ms. Graswald’s side was worried about a conviction. When you have situations where both sides are a little bit uncomfortable, that’s when deals get done.”
* * *
Plea bargain agreements seldom satisfy either side, and this case was no exception, judging by the public statements of both parties involved. However, it was not difficult to assume that the defense team was in a celebratory mood.
Aside from the actual sentencing, one big question remained. Would Angelika Graswald get the insurance money after she admitted to some blame in Vince’s death? It was a legal conundrum. State legal precedent, known as the “slayer rule,” prevented killers in New York State from profiting off reprehensible conduct that contributed to another person’s death. However, this had never been codified into law. Slayer rule decisions were made based on prior court decisions. Most experts felt that she probably wouldn’t receive the money, but there was doubt because of the nature of her charge.
For the moment, Richard Portale put that question to rest. He announced that his client didn’t “have any plans to try to fight for the money. I’m sure of that.”
CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR
On September 26, 2017, a Poughkeepsie-based non-profit called Family Services sponsored the National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims down by the waterfront. Congress had established this special day in 2007 to honor homicide victims and provide comfort for the impact of long-term trauma on families and communities.
A roll call of those who had been killed in Dutchess County was read to the hushed crowd: Katie Filberti, a teenager sexually assaulted and murdered in 2011; Patricia and Shawn Wonderley, who died when a suspect evading arrest by City of Poughkeepsie Police broadsided their van in 2012; and, of course, Vincent Viafore, who drowned in the Hudson River in 2015.
* * *
On October 27, 2017, Vince’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Angelika in the State Supreme Court, Dutchess County. In the documents, they claimed that Angelika’s negligence, recklessness, and carelessness made her responsible for the death of their loved one. The damages they sought were unspecified.
Unlike the criminal case against her, this civil case required less proof to get a favorable decision. Rather than the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, the plaintiffs only had to prove that a preponderance of evidence existed—more supporting their side than the other—to have Angelika declared civilly liable.
Laws vary from state to state, but in New York plaintiffs are limited to seeking reparation for the potential economic loss caused by the death—how many years the victim would have been anticipated to work and his or her potential pay during that period of time. In addition, pain and suffering can only be assessed if the victim can be shown to have experienced one or the other, or both. No value is placed on the grief of his loved ones. Occasionally, punitive damages can be added if the defendant’s misconduct involves reckless regard or malice.
For the Viafore family, as for many other victims’ families, the money is not the point. They seek accountability for Vince’s death and the Viafores wanted to limit Angelika’s ability to make money off of it.
* * *
On November 5, Richard Portale filed an appeal on Angelika’s behalf. Since her agreement to waive the right to appeal when she’d pleaded guilty contained wording that she could not appeal after her sentencing, Portale turned in the paperwork three days prior to her sentencing day on November 8.
On that day, Angelika entered the courtroom to listen to the most painful part of all the court proceedings: the victim impact statements.
Vince’s childhood friend Kevin Beisswinger’s speech was indicative of the feelings of many of Vince’s lifelong acquaintances.
“Vin was one of a kind, and he is greatly missed. When I heard the news that my friend, Vin Viafore, was missing on April 19, 2015, I was devastated and heartbroken, not just for me, but for so many people that I knew Vin had touched over the years. To know Vin was to love Vin. Once you were a friend of Vin’s, you had a friend for life. So many who were lucky enough to call him a friend know exactly what I mean when I say that.
“Angelika, of course, we now know, was involved. She took the life of a dear friend, son, brother, uncle. She, the person he had loved through ups and downs, had betrayed him. I wake up at night sometimes, shaking, thinking about how he must have felt in his final moments, betrayed by the woman he loved. There is no sentence available for this crime that she has pled to that is sufficient in my eyes.
“Vin was the center that kept so many of us connected over the years. He was always organizing get
-togethers when someone who had moved away was home visiting. He was a trusted friend whom I could lean on for advice and could count on for a compassionate ear. He was taken from all of us, and the world is simply less without Vin in it. I am especially heartbroken for Vin’s family, his wonderful mother, Mary Ann, his sister Laura, his ex-wife Sue, who he loved to the end. They, we, all deserve justice. They all deserve better. Vin deserved so much better.”
The next heart-stopping statement came from Vince’s sister, Laura Rice.
“On April 19, 2015, my brother Vinny died a very tragic death, and the lives of all who loved him will never be the same. When I think of my brother’s last moments alive, I think of the pain he must have endured and I visualize him trying to survive hypothermia in the freezing-cold river, confused and not understanding why the woman who said she loved him and wanted to marry him did nothing to help him.
“Over the past two and a half years, my family and I have quietly sat back through multiple adjournments, inaccurate statements, and accusations against my brother, so I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about Vinny and the wonderful person that Angelika took away from us all.
“Vinny was my little brother, always wanted to be included and following me around like my shadow. He grew up fast, and from the little boy his family called ‘little Vinny’ he became an amazing person. He was loyal, dedicated, brave, and fearless—living every day to the fullest.
“Vinny was a caring person. When he would see someone in need, he wouldn’t think twice about helping them. He would stop and give a homeless person a few dollars. And when the little girl next door had a problem with her bike tire my brother, as usual, delayed what he was doing and took her to the bike shop to get her tire fixed.
Death on the River Page 23