Joel steinberg where is he now

You kept me a prisoner. You beat me, all in front of our child. You tortured her too by doing that, you sick piece of blank, blank. You're so cheap, you deprived her of the normal pleasures of childhood. But I then turned the page after I suddenly realized, I suddenly saw him for the first time, and I wrote, "I'm sorry, Lisa.

I'm sorry I didn't see. I'm sorry. It's too late to see now, Lisa, but maybe we can help others. Maybe we can save another child's life. But because of that day, I made a promise to Lisa and I've dedicated myself to helping other battered women and children. So the judge's bunk was very high sitting right next to me so I moved my chair so that it would block my view of him. So I did not look at him while I was talking. Just the idea of getting up there and knowing that a lot of people blame me and knowing that he was sitting there.

And a lot of people just don't understand what it's like to be a battered woman, unless they've been through it. And a lot of people did understand, particularly women who had been through abuse. I got about letters from women supporting me, telling me that I helped them. A lot of women said they left their abusive husbands because of me, and I decided at one point to answer every one of those letters individually.

Not -- not -- not a Charges against her in the Steinberg case have been dropped. Steinberg is charged with second degree murder. Nussbaum fought hard to maintain her composure, though it was difficult when shown a picture of Lisa. Did you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?

Lisa would have been 21 years old this year. And Joel gets out of June of next year. How do you feel about that? He is supposed to be a model prisoner.

He has shown no remorse. Never admitted to even me, or But I mean, every time he has come up for parole, has is denied it. I don't know. KING: You were the prime witness against him?

And I have said, it is too far in the future, I have to live my life, I can't sit and worry about it. But I think when it gets really close, I will have to make a safety plan. I believe that his attorneys thought he would not make a good witness. KING: Should he have gotten second degree murder? What did you personally favor? I don't think that I had any specific.

I thought they would be back in a few hours. As days went by, I was really very worried because the only reason I figured that they wouldn't convict him is because they thought I did it. But so I was very relieved when they KING: And what have said was the reason that they were out so long? Thank you. The foreman of the jury apparently convinced them that it had to have been Joel.

KING: Not all battered women are brainwashed and methodical prisoners of their battering, are they? NUSSBAUM: They are not -- I think a lot of them are brainwashed in a way in that even women who weren't physically beaten, because the guy keeps telling them you're no good, you're this, you're that, you can't do anything right, and they start believing it after hearing it enough times, and that's a form of brainwashing too.

KING: And when you're in it, are you desperate? I mean, what's it like when you're in it? When I was in it, I wasn't really -- well, I didn't think of myself as a battered woman, I didn't realize what was happening. It is very slow and gradual.

She has written all of this. We hope to see the book published. And we'll wind things up with some other discussions about her plight right after this.

Nussbaum said she couldn't leave their Greenwich Village apartment without asking for permission from Steinberg. Put some pieces together. Was your mother -- were your parents alive during this trial? But they had been taken in by him, too. In fact, my mother said to me afterwards, she said, He had me fooled. I mean, she thought he was terrific.

KING: You never thought of telling your mother what he was doing to you? I didn't want my parents to know. In fact, when he didn't want me to see them, I, at that point -- I didn't want them to see me either.

Once I started having injuries -- when my nose was broken, I didn't want them to see. I didn't want anyone to know what was happening. In fact -- I think, I mean, people would think that I would be very hesitant So I knew that and I know that every man is not like Joel Steinberg. So, I really wanted to and still want to have another relationship, a permanent relationship.

Because, well -- he was very bright and I loved listening to him talk. I mean, he just was fascinating. I just loved being around him and enjoyed him. He was very outgoing and I was very shy and it just KING: He didn't apologize. He never said He had excuses.

He was trying to help me. He was helping my mental state. He built up a whole fiction around NUSSBAUM: I could not attend the parole hearings but -- in fact, I wasn't even allowed to talk to the parole board except for the last two times because I was neither a victim of the crime for which he was convicted nor was I considered a relative of the victim because I was not However, in the last few years they have changed the regulations and I did talk to representatives of the parole board before the parole hearing.

So I had my say. I mean, of course, I wish, you know, I had, you know, had run away with her, that I had stabbed him with a knife, done anything. KING: How do you explain him? This outgoing, bright, successful lawyer.

How do you rationalize, understand him? I know that he, like other abusive men, wants power and control. That's their main goal. Whatever excuses they give, that's what they want. And he seemed to thrive from it. He little by little -- he just needed the next kick to be higher. June 11, 1 No. Defendant's appeal from a conviction of first degree manslaughter, involving the death of six-year-old Lisa Steinberg, centers on his contention that only a person with medical expertise can form the requisite intent to cause serious physical injury to a child by failing to obtain medical care.

We conclude that this contention, as well as the several others defendant advances, lack merit, and that the Appellate Division order sustaining the conviction should be affirmed. In the evening of November 1, , defendant and Hedda Nussbaum were at home in their one-bedroom Greenwich Village apartment, with their two "adopted" children, Lisa, then six years old, and Mitchell, 16 months old.

Nussbaum was in the kitchen with Lisa while defendant dressed in the bedroom for his dinner appointment with a friend. Lisa went into the bedroom to ask defendant to take her with him.

Moments later, defendant carried Lisa's limp body out to Nussbaum, who was then in the bathroom, and they laid the child on the bathroom floor. Lisa was unconscious, having experienced blunt head trauma of great force, and her breathing was raspy. According to Nussbaum, defendant later admitted that he had "knocked [Lisa] down and she didn't want to get up again.

While Nussbaum attempted to revive Lisa, defendant continued dressing. Defendant told Nussbaum to let her sleep, promised to awaken the child upon his return, and then left for dinner. Nussbaum did not seek medical care for Lisa because she believed defendant had supernatural healing powers, and felt that calling for assistance would be considered a sign of disloyalty.

Defendant returned about three hours later, at p. When he came back a few minutes later, Nussbaum urged him to revive the still-unconscious child. Defendant declined-- explaining that they "ha[d] to be relating when she wakes up"-- and he instead freebased cocaine for the next several hours.

Finally, at a. Defendant rested his arm on Lisa, and continued talking to Nussbaum. At a. Defendant initially rejected Nussbaum's offer to call , but finally acceded when his attempts to resuscitate the child failed.

Police and paramedics arrived shortly after being summoned, administered oxygen, and rushed Lisa to the hospital. At the hospital, defendant explained that Lisa had gone to bed complaining of a stomach ache, and had vomited during the night, but that he believed she was otherwise all right until he checked on her around a.

In fact, the doctors determined that Lisa, who was in a coma, was suffering from severe head injuries--a result of blunt trauma--and placed her on life support equipment. Lisa's condition did not improve, and neurological tests performed on November 3 indicated that she was brain dead. Life support was discontinued on November 5. Defendant was indicted for second degree depraved indifference murder, first degree manslaughter, and seven charges that were severed or dismissed.

Defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. We find no error and accordingly also affirm. The People's theory, as charged to the jury, was that defendant performed both acts of commission striking Lisa and acts of omission failure to obtain medical care , each with intent to cause serious physical injury, and that such acts caused Lisa's death. Defendant contends that failure to obtain medical care for a child cannot, as a matter of law, support the mens rea element of first degree manslaughter-- intent to cause serious physical injury--unless defendant has medical expertise, and would thereby know that serious injury will result from a lack of medical attention.

That contention-- which he characterizes as the core question on this appeal--is meritless. Thus, a parent's failure to fulfill that duty can form the basis of a homicide charge see, People v Flayhart , 72 NY2d ; People v Henson , 33 NY2d Although Flayhart and Henson involved prosecutions for reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide, the failure to obtain medical care can also support a first degree manslaughter charge, so long as there is sufficient proof of the requisite mens rea--intent to cause serious physical injury.

Thus, if intent is the governing mens rea as it is here , the focus is on the defendant's conscious aim or purpose--the objective--in doing particular acts. Defendant's knowledge or awareness that the result will occur--while a factor the jury make take into consideration to infer intent--is itself not a prerequisite of intent. Contrary to defendant's claim, even a person without specialized medical knowledge can have the intent to cause serious physical injury by withholding medical care.

If the objective is to cause serious physical injury, the mental culpability element of first degree manslaughter is satisfied-- whether or not defendant had knowledge that the omission would in fact cause serious injury or death. Defendant argues that "everyone" knows that failure to supply food to a child will lead to death, and thus intentional homicide is a proper charge under those circumstances see, e.

The distinction defendant would have us draw, as a matter of law, between defendants who have a medical background and those who do not, is unsupportable.

Putting aside defendant's attempt to import a knowledge requirement into a statute that has none, and putting aside that the mens rea for first degree manslaughter is intent to cause serious physical injury, not death--it is plain that defendant's argument centers on factual, not legal, distinctions. Certainly there are situations where the need for prompt medical attention would be obvious to anyone--a child bleeding profusely, for example, or a six-year-old girl laying unconscious after a blunt head trauma.

Thus, defendant's argument that the failure to obtain medical care for a child may not, as a matter of law, support a homicide charge that requires intent must be rejected. Having found no defect in the prosecution's legal theory, we next consider whether the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the conviction.

In undertaking this review, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the People People v Contes , 60 NY2d , to determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d , There is no need to replicate the Appellate Division's extensive analysis of the record supporting its conclusion that the evidence was legally sufficient AD2d 50, It is adequate for our purposes to highlight the aspects of the case that demonstrate legal sufficiency.

There was no dispute at trial that Lisa's death was a homicide. Even the defense expert agreed that the child's death was caused by brain trauma as a result of abuse. The medical testimony, including Lisa's treating physicians and the post- mortem examination, confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that Lisa's death was a consequence of an assault and a failure to obtain prompt medical attention. The evidence was also legally sufficient to support the jury's determination that the assault was administered by defendant--and not Nussbaum, as the defense had argued.

Nussbaum herself testified that she did not strike Lisa that night; that moments after Lisa went into the bedroom, defendant carried her unconscious body out; and that defendant admitted to knocking Lisa down. There was also evidence that defendant had physically abused Lisa several days before her death, and that defendant's knuckles had fresh bruises on November 2.

Moreover, there was evidence of Nussbaum's debilitated physical condition on November 1 from which a jury could infer that she did not deliver the fatal injury. Thus, based on the evidence, a rational jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was defendant who caused the head trauma that led to Lisa's death.

The evidence was also sufficient to support the jury's determination that defendant struck Lisa and thereafter failed to summon medical assistance, each with the intent to cause serious physical injury. Intent may be inferred from conduct as well as the surrounding circumstances see, People v Smith , 79 NY2d , ; People v Bracey , 41 NY2d , The expert testimony described the tremendous force necessary to inflict the head trauma that caused Lisa's death.

Moreover, after Lisa was rendered unconscious, defendant left for dinner, and when he returned three hours later, freebased cocaine while the child lay on the bathroom floor. Additionally, when defendant admitted to Nussbaum during the night that he knocked Lisa down, he explained that "the staring business had gotten to be too much for her. Thus, the jury could have inferred from the evidence that defendant's objective in assaulting Lisa and failing to summon medical assistance was to cause serious physical injury, perhaps in response to Lisa's purported staring.

That defendant acceded to Nussbaum's request to telephone when Lisa stopped breathing might demonstrate that defendant did not intend to cause the child's death, but does not militate against the jury finding that he intended to cause serious injury. In sum, the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of first degree manslaughter.

Similarly, there is no merit in defendant's claim that Nussbaum's testimony was insufficiently corroborated. Although many states, and the federal courts, permit a conviction to rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice see, People v Moses , 63 NY2d , [Jasen, J. The corroboration must be independent of, and may not draw its weight and probative value from, the accomplice's testimony People v Moses , 63 NY2d at , supra; People v Hudson , 51 NY2d , The corroborative evidence need only "tend to connect" the defendant to the crime; it need not establish all the elements of the offense CPL Seemingly insignificant matters may harmonize with the accomplice's narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration People v Bretti , 68 NY2d , ; People v Moses , 63 NY2d at , supra; People v Cunningham , 48 NY2d at , supra.

So long as the statutory minimum is met, it is for the jury to decide whether the corroboration satisfies them that the accomplice is telling the truth see, People v Glasper , 52 NY2d , ; People v Fiore , 12 NY2d , The trial judge enumerated specific items of independent, corroborative evidence for the jury's consideration: i defendant's presence at the apartment at a.

This evidence, if credited by the jury--as was their prerogative--was sufficient to meet the "tending to connect" standard of CPL Thus, we reject defendant's assertions that there was insufficient corroboration as a matter of law. The final issue that warrants discussion concerns defendant's claim that the trial court erred in its response to a jury note.

As one of its numerous requests during deliberations, the jury asked for the following "clarification": "If there was no apparent intention to cause injury, but the acts resulted in serious physical injury nonetheless, would that be grounds to conclude intent as spelled out by law? The trial court is generally in the best position to evaluate the jury's request, and therefore is vested with discretion in framing an appropriate response People v Malloy , 55 NY2d , , cert denied US In all instances, the court must "respond meaningfully" to an inquiry People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d , A meaningful response may, depending on the circumstances, include simply rereading the initial charge see, People v Malloy , 55 NY2d at , supra.

The adequacy of the trial court's response is gauged by the form of the jury question, the particular issue of which inquiry is made, the supplemental instruction actually given, and the prejudice if any to the defendant People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d at , supra, quoting People v Malloy , 55 NY2d at , supra.

Intent can be a difficult issue to grasp, and thus the trial court cannot be faulted for giving a broader response than defendant would have liked.

In substance, the trial court explained that the People had the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had a conscious objective to cause serious physical injury; that intent is a mental operation that ordinarily must be inferred by an examination of all the facts and circumstances; and that the jury could infer that a person intended the natural and probable consequences of an act.

Nothing in the court's supplemental charge was a misstatement of the law, nor did it suggest a positive response to the jury's question. Indeed, as the Appellate Division noted, while a simple negative response would have informed the jury that it could not automatically infer intent to cause the injuries merely because the injuries occurred, such a response might have obscured the jury's right to make a factual finding of intent based on the natural and probable consequences of defendant's acts and the surrounding circumstances.

For these reasons, the trial court's supplemental charge was not erroneous. Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent they are preserved for our review, are without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Footnote 1. Order affirmed. Opinion by Judge Kaye. Judge Titone took no part. Murderpedia Juan Ignacio Blanco. Crime and punishment Steinberg was specifically accused of hitting Lisa on the head and then not seeking medical attention for the child, supposedly because he was under the influence of cocaine. Nobody bothered to find anything out! KING: That's what the defense tried to do, right?

KING: What were you doing at the time? What was I doing at the time? KING: For a living. KING: And the romance developed there, from that KING: You liked each other right away? KING: He was a control freak, in other words. KING: Why did you get back together? KING: One thing led to another. KING: And he was in love. KING: Why didn't you get married?

KING: Why? KING: Were your parents living? KING: Did they like him? They thought he was terrific. KING: How about his parents? KING: Did she like you? You get along with her? KING: It was happy for three years? KING: He was a social person. And I was very shy. KING: And he was successful. KING: The abuse of you, though -- nothing for three years. KING: Oh. KING: But you just KING: Could it have been stress?

KING: You knew all this. KING: So you knew that this was not a legal adoption. KING: Did he do all the papers and everything? KING: Yes. KING: He conned you. KING: You never changed your name. No, I never did. Now you're raising Lisa, right? KING: Is that going well? KING: And you loved being a mother. KING: You liked it all. They -- as the years KING: And you dismissed every one of them?

KING: And he forcibly KING: And he brought you back? KING: Couldn't they see it? KING: Didn't you report him? KING: Why didn't you report him later?

KING: You were whacked. She was almost 6-and-a-half. KING: When did he start abusing her? KING: Why did he start hitting her? KING: What do you mean? You never KING: When did he hit her? When you weren't there or KING: You'd be in another room? I mean KING: You'd come home and you'd see her. You knew she was hit, right? KING: Did you KING: So she had a brother? There was another child that KING: Illegally adopted? KING: Where is that boy? KING: Did you get to know him well?

You've probably heard of Stockholm syndrome KING: Going to get it published. What killed Lisa? KING: Where were you when this happened? KING: Were you on drugs?

And you are a whacked-out being possessed mother, right? Don't you know that? KING: Did you fear for her? KING: Since, you mean? KING: The circumstances surrounding the call were what? KING: Was she out? KING: Did you see any knock on her head? KING: She was unconscious. And then KING: By himself? KING: So what did you do with her? KING: What led you to call ? She's having difficulty breathing?

I'm giving her mouth-to-mouth. KING: Where is she, on the bed, lying on a bed? KING: Is she dead, at this point? KING: Where's the little boy? KING: What was the story? When did they arrest you? KING: Finally, what happened? KING: Get a lawyer right away? KING: And when did she die?

Steinberg will have to make regular visits to a parole officer through October Now disbarred, he worked in prison as a paralegal. She has quit her job at a domestic violence center, the Journal News reported Wednesday. Her small white house in Carmel was empty Tuesday. Case shattered abuse stereotypes The case defied many stereotypes about child abuse. This was a middle-class family, a lawyer and a book editor raising two children in a historic brownstone where Mark Twain once resided.

Nussbaum called on Nov. Lisa was naked, bruised and not breathing. He tries to interact, and I avoid eye contact. I mind my own business and keep quiet. Other times, he looks shabby and unshaved. Contact The Author Name required. Email required. Comment required. November 1, am Updated November 1, am.

Joel Steinberg Richard Harbus. Steinberg sits in a New York City courtroom in Steinberg with his daughter Lisa in The tragic girl was declared brain-dead Nov. Hedda was.

Steinberg on the day of his release in Twice during the interview, Steinberg strolled off to smoke cigarettes he bummed from strangers, and at one point upbraided a homeless woman who approached to beg for spare change. Share This Article. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.