1

1 CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

2 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF BRONX: PART AR3

3 --------------------------------------x

4 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :Docket No.

5 CR-003374-22BX
Arraignment
6

7 -against- :

8
FRANK ABROKWA,
9 Defendant. :

10 --------------------------------------x

11 215 East 161st Street

Bronx, New York 10451
12 March 1, 2022

13
B E F O R E: HONORABLE WENDY LICITRA,
14 Criminal Court Judge

15
A P P E A R A N C E S:
16
DARCEL D. CLARK, ESQ.
17 District Attorney, Bronx County
BY: GRACE PHILLIPS, ESQ.
18 Assistant District Attorney

19
BRONX DEFENDERS
20 Attorney for the Defendant
BY: SABRINA LEE, ESQ.
21

22

23

24 Tinamarie Vega
Official Court Reporter
25
 2
Proceedings

1 COURT OFFICER: Now calling onto the record,

2 docket number CR-003374-22BX, Frank Abrokwa. This

3 defendant is charged with Penal Law 120.20 and other

4 charges. And this defendant does have an active I-Card and

5 there is officers from the Hate Crime Unit here to pick him

6 up on that.

7 THE COURT: Good evening, everyone. So before

8 Mr. Abrokwa is brought out, it is my understanding that

9 members of the press are here and that they have made an

10 application to the Court that they be allowed to take still

11 photography in the courtroom of the proceedings.

12 Counselor, did you wish to be heard with respect to the

13 application from the press?

14 COUNSELOR LEE: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to

15 make an application to not permit photography or audio

16 recording or video recording under New York Court Rules

17 section 131.1. I believe that multiple factors

18 enumerated --

19 THE COURT: Can you speak a little louder, please?

20 COUNSELOR LEE: Yes, of course. I believe that

21 numerous factors listed in that section of the court rules

22 are applicable here.

23 THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to be a little more

24 specific, counselor?

25 COUNSELOR LEE: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that

 3
Proceedings

1 the second factor, whether the coverage could harm any

2 participant in these proceedings is applicable, in that as

3 of the information that I have currently, I believe that

4 the identification of Mr. Abrokwa as the alleged

5 perpetrator will be a major issue at trial. Continued

6 photography of him, especially in the context of his post

7 arrest proceedings, could be prejudicial at trial and limit

8 the Court's ability to select jurors in an expeditious

9 manner.

10 I also believe that the substance of the

11 allegations, such as the fifth factor regarding scandalous

12 matters, is applicable.

13 THE COURT: And People, did you wish to be heard?

14 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Grace Phillips for the Bronx

15 County District Attorney. The People take no position,

16 Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Based on my reading of 131.1, I do not

18 believe that still photography should be used in this

19 matter. I have taken into consideration what Ms. Lee has

20 put on the record regarding the nature of this alleged

21 offense, and whether this coverage would interfere with the

22 fair administration of justice for her client, and I do

23 believe that there is a danger, should still photography

24 allowed to be used, that the continued coverage of this

25 case and his photos displayed in the media will prevent him
 4
Proceedings

1 from receiving a fair trial down the road. So I am denying

2 the press' request to use still photography at this

3 proceeding at this time. And of course, that also involves

4 they should not be videotaping or audio taping the events.

5 So that is the Court's ruling on that issue.

6 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: We can bring out Mr. Abrokwa.

8 THE DEFENDANT: Miss, do me a favor. Can I

9 walk -- (inaudible) -- I don't want to hear it. I heard it

10 from my lawyer. You don't have to repeat yourself.

11 THE COURT: Okay. Good evening everyone. Okay.

12 People?

13 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Pardon me, I don't believe

14 defense counsel has yet waived the reading of the rights.

15 COUNSELOR LEE: I apologize.

16 On behalf of Mr. Abrokwa, Sabrina Lee with the

17 Bronx Defenders. I waive the reading of the rights and

18 charges, but not the rights thereunder and acknowledge

19 receipt of the Court's Discovery Order. And we serve

20 Parker Notice on the People.

21 At the end of these proceedings, we would like to

22 make a record regarding the presence of the detectives in

23 the courtroom.

24 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Grace Phillips for the Office

25 of the Bronx County District Attorney. People acknowledge

 5
Proceedings

1 the Court's standing discovery notices.

2 As to notices, Your Honor, the People have

3 previously digitally served and are now seeking to confirm

4 receipt of 710.30(1)(a) and 710.30(1)(b) Statement and

5 Identification Notices. Is Your Honor in receipt of said

6 notices?

7 THE COURT: I am in receipt of both, yes.

8 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Is counsel in receipt of said

9 notices?

10 COUNSELOR LEE: Yes.

11 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: I do take this opportunity to

12 acknowledge defense counsel's Parker Notice.

13 People are orally serving 250.20, Demand For Alibi

14 Notice. And that concludes our notices at this time.

15 Your Honor, the People are not converted on this

16 matter. We are requesting the issuance of an Order of

17 Protection on behalf of the named complainant. We do have

18 a bail application whenever Your Honor is ready.

19 THE COURT: Is that complainant Sonia Diaz?

20 COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: And Ms. Lee, did you need to be heard

22 with respect to the Order of Protection?

23 COUNSELOR LEE: No, thank you, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: So Mr. Abrokwa, is that how you say

25 your name?
 6
Proceedings

1 THE DEFENDANT: Right.

2 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Abrokwa. I am issuing a

3 full Order of Protection at this time on behalf of Sonia

4 Diaz.

5 THE DEFENDANT: I don't know that bitch.

6 THE COURT: Okay. If you are going to talk like

7 that, you are going to go right back inside.

8 THE DEFENDANT: Why can't I go -- (inaudible)

9 THE COURT: No, you don't get to decide where you

10 go. If you're going to talk like that, you're going back

11 in. Do you want to listen? Are you going to listen? Let

12 me just talk to you about this Order of Protection.

THE DEFENDANT: Just go ahead and finish what

you're saying and I'll respectfully keep quiet.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. So you have to --

THE DEFENDANT: I'll let her do the talking for

me.

THE COURT: That's a very good idea.

THE DEFENDANT: Would you move aside, please?

Thank you so much.

THE COURT: Okay. So Mr. Abrokwa, this Order of

Protection --

THE DEFENDANT: Y'all talking to her, not me.

She's my attorney. I'm being respectful. She told me I

need to be quiet. So you're talking to her --

 7
Proceedings

THE COURT: Okay, you know what, second call.

THE DEFENDANT: All right. Fuck you, bitch.

THE COURT: Step in. Second call.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COURT OFFICER: This is a second call, docket

number CR-003374-22BX, Frank Abrokwa. Charged with Penal

Law 120.20 and other charges.

THE COURT: Okay. So we are going to try this

again, Mr. Abrokwa. I am issuing a full Order of

Protection on behalf of Sonia Diaz. Please have absolutely

no contact with this person. You cannot go to her home,

school, or where she works. You can't call her, text her,

e-mail her, reach out to her on Facebook, Twitter,

Instagram, or any form of social media. And you may not

have friends or other family members reach out to her on

your behalf. If you violate any of the conditions of this

temporary full Order of Protection, you can be rearrested

and face additional criminal charges; do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: I think he said mm-hmm. Okay. And

also, I'm not asking you if you do or if you don't, but if

you are in possession of any firearms, you must immediately

surrender them to your local precinct. I did sign the

Order of Protection, and I'm going to ask that you sign it

as well.
 8
Proceedings

COURT OFFICER: Defendant signed the Order of

Protection in open court.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Okay. People,

notices?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Your Honor, the People have

previously digitally served 710.30(1)(a) and 710.30(1)(b)

Statement Notice and Identification Notice. Is Your Honor

in receipt of said notices?

THE COURT: Yes.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Is counsel in receipt of said

notices?

COUNSELOR LEE: Yes.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: People are orally serving

250.20, Demand For Alibi Notice. And we acknowledge

receipt of defense counsel's Parker letter.

THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, People?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Your Honor, is Your Honor

prepared for my bail application, or would Your Honor like

to discuss the Supporting Deposition matter first?

THE COURT: Well, you can make your bail

application. Let me just make an initial finding that this

matter is not a qualifying offense pursuant to the statute.

So People, you have to tell me how you believe that this

becomes a qualifying offense and what your theory for that

is. Because pursuant to 510.10(4), none of the charges on

 9
Proceedings

this complaint are qualifying offenses. So with that

backdrop, I will now allow you to make your application.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor.

Your Honor, the People are requesting that bail be

set in the amount of $5,000 cash, $15,000 insurance bond,

and $15,000 insurance bond partially secured at 10%.

The People are requesting that bail be set in

these amounts pursuant to CPL 510.10(4)(t). And I'll go

straight to that portion of my application, Your Honor.

Defendant has two open Manhattan matters, both of

which include charges of A misdemeanors. Prior to the

calendar call, Your Honor raised that she was not

comfortable with the hearsay allegations in those

complaints. I provided my understanding that those

incidents were captured on video. Additionally, I would

just like to make a note that these are identified civilian

witnesses, under the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you speak louder?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Certainly. These are all

identified civilian witnesses. People who are reliable. I

would also note that under 70.10(2), reasonable cause to

believe that a person has committed an offense exists when

evidence or information which appears reliable discloses

facts or circumstances which are collectively of such

weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of

 10
Proceedings

ordinary intelligence, judgement, and experience that it is

reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that

such person committed it. Except as otherwise provided in

this chapter, such apparently reliable evidence may include

or consist of hearsay evidence. So I do think hearsay

evidence is sufficient.

I would also point the Court to People v Franklin.

I can provide the citation for Your Honor, if you'd like,

of a recently decided opinion by Judge Zimmerman here in

the Bronx, which he specifically considered this question,

found that hearsay would be acceptable under 510.10(4)(t),

and found further that often the People, as a practical

matter, would have to rely on the filing of the accusatory

instrument. So with that all, I will come back to the

Manhattan cases.

THE COURT: Okay.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: The defendant is before you

today because he assaulted a woman while she sat alone on

the subway getting ready for her commute home after a day

of work.

The complainant was waiting at the Wakefield -

East 241 subway station when the defendant began walking

towards her. The defendant approached her saying, in sum

and substance: Hey mami, how come you don't want to talk

to me?
 11
Proceedings

The complainant did not engage with the defendant.

Instead of taking her lack of engagement in stride, the

defendant chose to respond with violence. He walked into a

nearby idling subway car and defecated in a bag. He then

walked back up to the complainant and repeatedly smashed

the bag and his feces into her face, head, neck, shoulders

and back area. She had feces in her eyes, nose, mouth,

ears and hair. As he attacked her, the defendant stated,

in sum and substance: Like this, bitch?

The complainant was able to use her bag as a

shield against further attacks, but the force of the

defendant's attack left her with a small bleeding

laceration inside her lip, a swollen and red forehead, and,

as the complainant would learn after she went to a local

hospital and had blood work done, a urine infection.

After assaulting the complainant, the defendant

fled. An MTA worker called 911, and the complainant was

transported to a local Bronx hospital. The defendant was

subsequently identified by a DHS police officer who saw the

wanted flyer. The incident was captured on video

surveillance.

And just to be clear, the defendant did not

surrender himself. He was identified based on the wanted

flyer, and he was arrested when he returned to his shelter.

When defendant was finally arrested, he demonstrated

 12
Proceedings

exactly how concerned he was about what he had done by

joking with the police, saying in sum and substance: Shit

happens, ha ha. This is a shitty situation, ha ha.

Your Honor is entitled to consider defendant's

activities and history under 510.30(1)(a). His instant

conduct demonstrates not only a willingness to assault a

lone woman simply for the offense of disregarding his

unwanted advances, but also a desire to evade taking

responsibility for his conduct.

THE DEFENDANT: That's not true. Y'all know that

shit.

COUNSELOR LEE: Quiet down.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Defendant fled as soon as he

completed his assault. When he was arrested, he made jokes

about it. These are all facts Your Honor can and should

consider.

But the defendant's own criminal history provides

additional material for Your Honor to consider. The

defendant stands before Your Honor with one felony

conviction, one probation revocation, ten misdemeanor

convictions, and bench warrants stemming from 2005 all the

way up to 2022.

And on February 17, 2005, defendant was arrested

in Kings County for petit larceny. He bench warranted

three times, before finally pleading guilty to attempted

 13
Proceedings

petit larceny on November 16, 2005.

Shortly after his first bench warrant was issued,

on March 30, 2005, defendant was arrested in the Bronx for

petit larceny. He plead guilty on that case April 4, 2005,

but just a week later on April 11, 2005, he was arrested

for robbery in the first degree and other related charges.

He ultimately plead guilty to attempted robbery in the

third degree on April 21, 2005, but a bench warrant was

subsequently issued. It is unclear if that warrant is from

a failure to appear for his sentencing. On March 2, 2007,

the defendant was resentenced on that matter, and his

probation was revoked for a violation.

Despite this conviction, the most serious of

defendant's criminal career, just a few months after being

resentenced he again found himself arrested for turnstile

jumping. He plead guilty at arraignment.

Undeterred, defendant was arrested again in

January of 2008. He ultimately plead guilty to petit

larceny on January 8, 2008. Just a week later, he was

arrested yet again for turnstile jumping and plead guilty

at arraignments.

In 2011, defendant was arrested for attempted

assault in the first degree, but the case was ultimately

dismissed pursuant to CPL 730 due to mental disease or

defect.
 14
Proceedings

In 2014, defendant was again arrested for

turnstile jumping and, again, he plead guilty at

arraignments.

In 2016, defendant was arrested for criminal

possession of a controlled substance and plead guilty at

arraignments.

In 2017, he was arrested for turnstile jumping.

He bench warranted on that case for five months before

pleading guilty. And that's 2017, Your Honor. It is

unclear from his RAP sheet if that was a voluntary return,

but the fact the defendant was arrested on September 5,

2017 for petit larceny suggests it was not a voluntary

return. He plead guilty on that case on September 8th.

A little less than a year later, in May of 2018,

defendant was again arrested, this time for criminal sale

of a controlled substance in the third degree. After

completing a diversion program, that conviction was

vacated. A similar result for another arrest he had in

July of 2018.

This record evinces defendant's unwillingness to

abide by court orders to appear, and his inability to take

advantage of the numerous opportunities he has received to

cease engaging in criminal conduct. This record is alone

is worrisome, but defendant's most recent conduct elevates

that concern.
 15
Proceedings

On January 7, 2022, defendant assault a different

subway-goer by punching them multiple times. It appears

defendant was given a DAT with a return date of January

27th. He failed to return and a bench warrant was issued.

On February 5, 2022, defendant assaulted a lone

Greyhound bus driver by punching him in the back of the

head. Given his arrest, defendant was returned on the open

warrant. He is next due to appear on both of those cases

on April 28, 2022.

And Your Honor, to return to my earlier point as

to why these cases create a predicate for Your Honor to set

bail, the drafting assistant here did speak with the

Manhattan ADA. He didn't ask him the specific question

about Supporting Deposition, but the Manhattan ADA did say

to him that he intends to state ready on the next court

date. As Your Honor knows, that would require that this

ADA already is converted or will be converted by April 28,

2022.

THE COURT: So People, address the February 22nd,

because it looks like the incident alleged here was before

that incident, so I don't know that that could be used.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Pardon me, Your Honor. I

believe you are referring to, and I haven't even gotten

there yet, the fact that he has an open Bronx case.

THE COURT: No, this is not a Bronx case. Oh,

 16
Proceedings

yes, it is a Bronx case.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor. And I would

note that in that case, the defendant is alleged to have

stolen a screwdriver from a store in the Bronx and menaced

the employee with it on his way out.

I did speak to the assigned about that case. She

said she believes she will be able to convert it in the

next day or two. But Your Honor is correct. We do not

believe that that would be a predicate for asking for bail,

as that occurred after this.

THE COURT: So then you have one docket?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: No, Your Honor. There are

two Manhattan dockets. There are two Manhattan dockets,

and he also has an open Bronx case.

THE COURT: So we can't use the Bronx case, I

think we agree on that.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Correct.

THE COURT: So I have a Manhattan docket here,

where the charge is assault. And that's from January 11th

of 2022.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: So Your Honor should have two

complaints. There is one for a January 7, 2022. There is

another alleging an assault on February 5, 2022. I will

pass those both up now to Your Honor.

And again, one of those is punching a subway-goer

 17
Proceedings

multiple times. And the other one is assaulting a

Greyhound bus driver by punching him in the back of the

head.

THE COURT: That's the January 7th?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor. The January

7th is the other subway assault.

THE COURT: And that complaining witness is a

Michael Censor (sp)?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: I believe so.

THE COURT: Do you have the complaint?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: I just handed up the

complaints to Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can give this back to her.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor. The January

7th complaint is Michael Censor as the complaining witness.

THE COURT: Do you have a Supporting Deposition in

your possession from a Michael Censor?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: I do not. However, as I

pointed out under 70.10(2), we are not required to cure all

hearsay in order to provide reasonable cause to believe he

committed these crimes.

THE COURT: Right. Except that here, you have an

officer that is saying he is informed by Michael Censor.

So if there is no Supporting Deposition for Michael Censor,

then you just have an officer making that declaration, so I

 18
Proceedings

don't know that that would be sufficient.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Well, Your Honor, in addition

to having the officer make that declaration, I have also

provided additional information to this Court that it is my

understanding that both of those incidents are on video

surveillance.

THE COURT: Do you have the video surveillance?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Not at this time, Your Honor.

Those are identified witnesses.

THE COURT: So what I'm saying, People, is that

that is what you would need, in my opinion, to support that

complaint. If you had the video surveillance and I could

view it, if you had a Supporting Deposition, but what I

have in my possession is merely a complaint.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Respectfully, Your Honor,

both as an officer of the court who is providing

information from another officer of the court, that does

count as information. And additionally, as I said, Your

Honor, under 70.10(2), we don't have to cure hearsay to

provide reasonable cause.

THE COURT: Well, I disagree with my colleague,

Judge Zimmerman, on that. And his position is only

persuasive for me.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: That's correct, Your Honor.

However, in 70.10(2) it is mandatory. That is what the

 19
Proceedings

legislature has written there, that hearsay does not need

to be cured to find reasonable cause.

THE COURT: Right. But with respect to the

statute 510.20(4)(t) that you are relying on, there is

nothing -- there is no -- other than Judge Zimmerman's

case, there is nothing to bind me to not require the People

to have a Supporting Deposition.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Your Honor, with all due

respect, it is an actual canon of interpretation that one

should interpret the entire law together. Here, where we

have the legislature specifically saying under 70.10(2)

that you don't need to cure hearsay defect to find

reasonable cause to believe a crime is committed. I think

every statutory canon for interpretation that I have ever

read would have Your Honor read that in 510.10(4)(t).

THE COURT: Right. If that's what I chose to do,

but I'm not sure that's what I am going to do here.

I will hear from you, Ms. Lee.

COUNSELOR LEE: Your Honor, I would like to

separate my argument into two pieces. First, I'd like to

address whether or not 510.10(4)(t) is applicable here.

And then I'd like to move on to the applicability of the

bail factors in this case if the Court does find that

subsection 4(t) is applicable.

THE COURT: Okay.

 20
Proceedings

COUNSELOR LEE: There is one canon of

interpretation that the government has consciously avoided

in their application, and that is the rule against

surplusage. The rule against surplusage asks Courts to

interpret statutes such that words do not become

meaningless in their interpretation of the statutory

language.

Accepting the prosecution's interpretation of

section 4(t) would violate that rule. And the reason that

it would violate that rule is that section 4(t) presupposes

that two Criminal Court complaints, at minimum, have been

filed against a defendant. If the mere filing of a

Criminal Court complaint were sufficient, there would be no

reason for the legislature to include language of

reasonable cause. Instead, it could completely omit that

language and result in the same interpretation that the

government is asking this Court to adopt. That would

violate a long established canon of interpretation.

There is also good reason to interpret the

statute, such that reasonable cause means something other

than the rule against surplusage. And that is that

designating an otherwise unqualified offense as one as

qualified dramatically changes the course of a case. It

takes a case for which the maximum sentence of one year

could result in someone serving jail time for even more

 21
Proceedings

than that amount of time. In order to put a case into that

category, the prosecution must do more than simply file two

Criminal Court complaints.

Now, I want to talk about the Franklin case that

the prosecution brought up, which is only persuasive

authority. But even as persuasive authority, it does not

require this Court to apply section 4(t) to this case. And

the reason is, that in Franklin, the Court was presented

with extremely detailed allegations in a Criminal Court

complaint; one that involved numerous witnesses, one that

involved very detailed allegations regarding the nature of

the injuries. The level of detail that was included in

that Criminal Court complaint directly affected the outcome

of the Court's ruling.

I'm pulling up the language of that case now. And

Judge Zimmerman says in that case, "given the amount of

detail and the level of specificity, the familiarity

between the parties, the reliability of the hearsay

declarant whose identity was known to the police, and the

reliability of the identification procedure, the Court

determined that the prosecution met their burden of

demonstrating reasonable cause."

THE DEFENDANT: That was good.

COUNSELOR LEE: That is simply not what the

situation is that we are in here. This is not a situation,

 22
Proceedings

in either one of the Manhattan Criminal Complaints, where

the parties are known to each other. Without knowing more

about the cases, I will say that what is contained within

the four corners of the complaint is not especially

detailed.

There is also no information here for us to assume

that these complainants are any more reliable than we

assume when someone merely identifies himself to the

police.

And finally, there is no corroborating information

here that we can point to that is especially reliable, such

as an identification procedure.

Even if Franklin is applicable, this Court is free

to find that 510.10(4)(t) is not applicable to this case,

that this is not a qualifying offense, and that bail,

therefore, cannot be set on my client. But even if it were

applicable in this case, there is very good reason to not

set bail.

So now I'd like to move on to the second section

of my argument. For some New Yorkers, the amount of bail

that the prosecution is requesting would be legal. And

more than legal, it would be reasonable. For some people,

paying $5,000 in cash or $1,500 to a bond company is what

makes coming to court go from optional to necessary. But

Mr. Abrokwa is not one of those people. Mr. Abrokwa is

 23
Proceedings

homeless. He has absolutely no income.

But Mr. Abrokwa's poverty is not the only reason

to release him today. I want to turn Your Honor's

attention to the facts alleged in this case. There is no

question that what you see when you watch the video of the

alleged incident that's been plastered all over the media

is viscerally upsetting. It is horrible to see a person

both attacked and degraded for no apparent reason. But I

want Your Honor to consider what we don't see. What we

don't see in the media and what we don't see in the

prosecution's bail application.

One week after the incident, we haven't seen

anything suggesting that a single eyewitness present at the

time of the alleged incident has identified my client. One

week after this alleged incident, we haven't seen any

indication that the complainant in this case has pointed

Mr. Abrokwa out in an ID procedure. One week after this

incident, the prosecution doesn't even have her signature

on the Criminal Court Affidavit to confirm that it aligns

with her view of the events.

This is also the case where we don't see a

confession that will come into court. The Statement Notice

served by the prosecution begins with an invocation for a

lawyer. Based on what we know now, that statement is

entirely inadmissible. All that we see of the

 24
Proceedings

prosecution's case at this point is a video. A viscerally

upsetting video, but a video in which the suspect is

wearing completely different clothing from what Mr. Abrokwa

was arrested in. A video from a different time and place

from where he was arrested. A video in which part of the

suspect's face was concealed by two different types of

headgear.

We are in the dark about many parts of the

government's case and its strength. But we aren't in the

dark about Mr. Abrokwa. In addition to knowing that he's

homeless, we know that Mr. Abrokwa hasn't missed a single

court date in the last five years, and that in the last 17,

he's missed just one.

I spoke with Mr. Abrokwa's Manhattan attorney,

Amanda Bradley, on the phone this evening, and she told me

that Mr. Abrokwa was 100 Centre Street just yesterday. He

didn't just make his most recent court date, he also

attended an appointment with Cases, as well as a separate

conversation with Cases and his attorney. That happened on

February 8th. At his next appointment with Cases, he is

scheduled to receive a number of services as well as a

phone, a development that will enhance his already

demonstrated ability to come to court.

We also aren't in the dark about services that can

be afforded to Mr. Abrokwa if he is released, versus those

 25
Proceedings

at Riker's. We know that during the pandemic the

Department of Corrections has suffered a devastating lack

of labor, and that has directly impacted people like Mr.

Abrokwa. People that might need serious medical care

during the pendency of his case. It is no one's fault, but

Mr. Abrokwa is very unlikely to receive any of that

treatment if bail is set in this case.

By contrast, if he is released, he will be

assigned a social worker on the Bronx Defender's defense

team, and that social worker will take every measure to

connect Mr. Abrokwa with the necessary health resources

that he needs.

I urge Your Honor to release Mr. Abrokwa today,

not just because 510.10(4)(t) isn't applicable, but also

because Mr. Abrokwa is someone for whom $5,000 required

that he will fight this case from a cage. That is not what

the bail statute envisioned happening, and it is not the

least restrictive means for Mr. Abrokwa. I ask that Your

Honor consider, in light of all of these details, releasing

him on his own recognizance.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Your Honor, may I respond?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. PHILLIPS: I will begin with, again, I think

the threshold question here is I think Counselor Lee

correctly focuses on her argument about surplusage. I

 26
Proceedings

think she mistakes surplusage. I think including the

language reasonable cause fairly indicates you should be

considering reasonable cause. I think the legislature

clearly defines what reasonable cause isn't, and it

certainly isn't barring all hearsay. I think saying that I

have ignored the idea of surplusage when I am actually

pointing Your Honor directly to the exact same term as it s

defined by the legislature is incorrect.

I point out with the Franklin case, one of the

factors that Judge Zimmerman raised that Ms. Lee just

raised, is the identified civilian witnesses known to

police. We have that here.

THE COURT: I don't have that, counselor.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: You have the names of the

complainants that are identified right there.

THE COURT: Right, but there is no Supporting

Deposition. There is nothing from those complainants

saying --

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: That's not their

identification.

THE COURT: -- there is nothing from them saying

that this incident occurred the way it is written here.

All we have is an officer saying that, based on information

from these eyewitnesss, or these complainants, that what is

in the complaint is true. But we have nothing from the

 27
Proceedings

identifying witnesses, no supporting paperwork. You say

there is video, but you haven't produced the video for me

to review. So all that I am left with is the complaint.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Yes, Your Honor, but the

point I am making is that one of the factors Judge

Zimmerman considered is that there were identified civilian

witnesses in the complaint, where he was allowing hearsay

to be sufficient for 4(t) purposes. That is present here.

We do have named complainants. It is not as if they are

saying a person known to the NYPD. We have named

identifying complainants.

I also turn to, you know, I think Counselor Lee

said she wants you to see what we don't see. This is a

defendant who is already on Supervised Release. She talked

about the services he's be offered. He is already

receiving services. He's received prior dispositions from

the Court that provided him with substantial services. He

has taken those opportunities and he's wound up here before

Your Honor again. And it is just the latest in a sequence

of appearing before Judges and not really listening to what

they have to say to him, not really snapping out of this

idea of continuing to commit crime.

I think the idea that we don't have any

eyewitnesses who have come forward in the past week, this

is a defendant who clearly, as part of his standard

 28
Proceedings

operating procedure, is looking for people who are alone.

The Greyhound bus driver he attacked was alone. This woman

was alone waiting for a train to leave. She was sitting in

the station for 20 to 30 minutes at the end of the line

waiting for the trains to go backwards. So the idea that

there is no eyewitness to come forward, when it is the

defendant who chooses to attack when they are alone, I

think it strains good faith in him.

Finally, I point to the fact that this is someone

who has fled and bench warranted on minor cases. I think

Ms. Lee ends with it is not what the bail statute

envisioned. I think 510.10(4)(t) specifically envisioned

this defendant. It envisioned a defendant who is released

on an A misdemeanor complaint and continued to commit

crimes. That is this defendant. 510.10(4)(t) clearly is

designed to capture defendants like this who continue to

commit violent crimes that do not rise to the level of

otherwise bail eligibility. By having that reasonable

cause statute there, that reasonable cause can be met with

hearsay allegation. That's directly spelled out in the

CPL. That's been found by other judges here in the Bronx.

So I will end by saying it is also worth noting

he's provided five addresses over the past six years.

Ms. Lee points out that he is homeless. That means has no

community ties and it will be harder to find him. He's

 29
Proceedings

already warranted on a case in 2022. So it may have been

17 years since one before that, but January 27, 2022, a

bench warrant was issued for this defendant. He did not

voluntarily return on that warrant. So with all of that

said, Your Honor, unless you have any other questions for

me, you know, I will just point out, given his conduct,

given his criminal history, given the various other factors

I have raised here, the People do believe that monetary

bail is the least restrictive means to ensure this

defendant's return to court. And we request $5,000 cash,

$15,000 bond, and $15,000 bond partially secured at 10%.

COUNSELOR LEE: Your Honor, the only thing I will

add is just that Mr. Abrokwa has confirmed for me just now

that he has no access to funds to pay bond, in part because

he's been the victim of crimes recently that have produced

his inability, and so he is not able to pay bond.

THE COURT: Okay. Have you been able to reach

anyone from his family, Ms. Lee?

COUNSELOR LEE: No, Your Honor.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: And if Your Honor does not

set bail, we will be requesting Supervised Release.

Though, I again note for the Court he is already on

Supervised Release. And it is my understanding he is on

level 2, tier 4.

THE COURT: People, Supervised Release is not an

 30
Proceedings

option for him. He has officers here from Brooklyn that

are going to be taking him to Brooklyn on an open Brooklyn

complaint.

All right. So I have reviewed the statute relied

on by the People, which is CPL 510.10(4)(t). I have read

the complaints provided. The People provided two

complaints to the Court, each from a New York County. One

of the incidents was alleged to have occurred on January

7th, and one of the incidents is alleged to have occurred

on February 5th. However, I do not have Supporting

Deposition paperwork on either of those dockets from either

of the complaining witnesses. Each of those dockets is a

docket where the officers are informed by individuals

alleging that these incidents have occurred, but there is

no paperwork or no Supporting Depositions, no statements,

no sworn affidavits from those individuals that these

incidents occurred the way that they are alleged to have

occurred in these complaints.

I don't find complaints absent more sufficient to

activate the statute 510.10(4)(t). I do believe that what

I am left with are complaints where there are no qualifying

offenses, so I will be releasing him at this time. I'm

releasing him on his own recognizance on this case.

However, I do believe that there are officers here to take

him to Brooklyn.
 31
Proceedings

COUNSELOR LEE: Your Honor, I'd like to make a

brief record.

THE COURT: Okay. So what date, Ms. Lee?

COUNSELOR LEE: Your Honor, I'd like to just make

a record that before this calendar call I provided my card

to Detective Zhang, who is present in the courtroom today.

My understanding is that he is taking my client into

custody. I'm invoking Mr. Abrokwa's right to silence, and

also to counsel, including all procedures involving

potential identification. And I would request that the

detectives contact me and any other attorney prior to

conducting such procedures.

THE COURT: Okay. Officer, can you please put

your name and shield number on the record for me?

DETECTIVE ZHANG: Detective Daniel Zhang, shield

number 7330, Hate Crime Task Force.

THE COURT: What was that shield number again?

DETECTIVE ZHANG: 7330.

THE COURT: Okay. So Detective Zhang, you are

taking Mr. Abrokwa into custody for a Brooklyn 61 that's

open?

DETECTIVE ZHANG: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: Okay. What date? This is going into

AP4.

COUNSELOR LEE: Could we have April 7th, please?

 32
Proceedings

THE COURT: Yes.

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: Your Honor, I believe his

open matter in the Bronx is on in AP3, if you'd like it to

join that.

THE COURT: Yes, let's put it in AP3. What date?

COUNSELOR PHILLIPS: I believe it is April 7th.

THE COURT: So this matter is going into AP3 for

April 7th. You're released on your own recognizance on

this matter. This matter will be put on for Supporting

Deposition as well as Certificate of Compliance.

* * * *

Certified to be a true and accurate transcript of the

stenographic minutes taken within.

Tinamarie Vega
_______________

Tinamarie Vega
Official Court Reporter