Julie Herrnkind argued that proceeding anonymously in court would shield her from further mental harm.
From yesterday’s New York appellate division decision in People v. Herrnkind:
On November 5, 2001, the defendant and her co-defendant—her husband—abused and killed their three-year-old daughter. In 2004, she was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and received a fixed sentence of 25 years in prison, followed by a five-year period of post-release supervision….
In 2022, she moved to set aside her sentence and seek resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) pursuant to Penal Law § 60.12, requested to seal the motion record, and asked that the caption be kept anonymous…. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding, among other things, that she did not submit evidence within the DVSJA’s framework demonstrating abuse at the time of the offense or that the abuse was substantial. The defendant appeals.
It is undisputed that, during the course of this appeal, she was released from custody and subsequently discharged from parole. Accordingly, her arguments for resentencing under the DVSJA have become academic, as she has already completed the challenged sentence.
Civil Rights Law § 50-b provides that the “identity of any victim of a sex offense” shall be confidential…. Here, the defendant did not establish that she was the victim of a sex offense as defined by Civil Rights Law § 50-b.
Additionally, she failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to seal the motion’s record, since most of the information contained therein had already been disclosed during the criminal trial….
“In deciding whether to grant a party’s request to proceed anonymously, the court must exercise its discretion by balancing the party’s privacy interests against the presumption of open trials and against any prejudice to the opposing party.” “Among the factors the court should weigh are 1) whether the party challenges governmental action or an individual’s conduct, 2) whether the action requires disclosure of highly intimate information, 3) whether identification of the party would expose them or innocent third parties to risk of physical or mental injury, 4) whether the opposing party would be prejudiced by anonymity, and 5) the public interest in ensuring open access to proceedings without denying litigants access to the justice system.”
Here, to support her motion to keep the caption anonymous, the defendant submitted an attorney affirmation that offered only a brief statement that revealing her identity might cause further mental harm, which the court found insufficient to warrant the relief requested….
From the New York Times story in 2001 (by Nina Bernstein & Andy Newman) about the brutal killing:
In a written statement to law-enforcement, a mother facing charges for killing her 3-year-old daughter admitted striking the child in a bathtub in a rage over her soiled pants. She said she aided her husband as he scrubbed the child’s skin raw with a Brillo pad and poured alcohol and peroxide onto the wounds.
The mother, Julie Herrnkind, 24, stated that she and her husband, Matthew Herrnkind, 27, who also faced charges, attempted to quiet the child’s cries by force-feeding her soap and holding her head under cold water.
Ultimately, they left the child, Sylena, in a fetal position in a tub of water. “I checked to see if her chest was rising because she wasn’t moving,” the statement read. “I thought, we’ve gone too far this time. She was lying on the floor and after no response, I picked her up. I then called 911 and said, ‘Oh my God, we killed this kid.’”
As details emerged, officials at the city’s Administration for Children’s Services tried to determine whether warning signs were missed by the parade of caseworkers, therapists, homemakers, and child-protection investigators who went in and out of the Staten Island home over the past year and a half, looking after the Herrnkinds’ five children [including] Sylena….
The agency had removed Sylena and the three older children into foster care in 1998 after finding that Diane had been abused, and returned them in March 2000 with court-ordered supervision and services….
