Skip to main content

Barbara Kogan Pleads Guilty to Planning Murder of Her Husband

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of BARBARA KOGAN for arranging the 1990 contract killing of her husband, George Kogan. KOGAN pleaded guilty to felony charges of Manslaughter in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the Second Degree, and Grand Larceny in the First Degree.

“The defendant’s guilty plea brings to a close a difficult, nearly 20-year-old murder case,” said District Attorney Vance. “The group of current and former NYPD detectives and individuals within Manhattan District Attorney’s Office responsible for today’s announcement showed extraordinary perseverance in their dogged investigation of this case, which led them from New York to Puerto Rico and finally to court today. Since 1990, Assistant District Attorney Joel Seidemann has tenaciously pursued justice in this case, which this plea delivers today.”

KOGAN, 67, plotted with her lawyer, MANUEL MARTINEZ, 60, to hire a hit man to kill her husband with whom she was in the midst of a divorce. George Kogan was killed with three gunshots wounds on October 23, 1990, in front of his mistress’s apartment building on East 69th Street. KOGAN subsequently collected approximately $4.3 million from her husband’s life insurance policies.

MARTINEZ was convicted for murder and criminal solicitation in April 2008 and is serving a sentence of 25 years to life. A grand jury indicted MARTINEZ in 1996 on these charges but he was required to serve out a jail term in Mexico on unrelated charges before being extradited to the United States in 2007.

District Attorney Vance thanked NYPD detectives Don Kennedy and James Zaccari and former NYPD detectives Ernie Bugge, Joseph Buffalino and Raymond Brennan. The case was prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys Joel Seidemann, Mirella deRose, and David Drucker with assistance from former Assistant District Attorney Soumya Dayananda.

Defendant information:

BARBARA KOGAN, 2/10/1943

316 East 55th Street

New York, NY 10022

Charges:

Manslaughter in the First Degree, a class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison

Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the Second Degree, a class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison

Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class B felony, punishable by up to 25 years in prison
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more