People v. Ralph Sanders - queensda.org Trial Final - October - 20… · People v. Ralph Sanders-Case File-Mock Trial Competition October 29 - October 30, 2016 Kew Gardens, New York

Office of the Queens County District Attorney

Richard A. BrownDistrict Attorney

People v. Ralph Sanders

-Case File-

Mock Trial CompetitionOctober 29 - October 30, 2016

Kew Gardens, New York

Table of Contents

Competition Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

911 Transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Response to the Scene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Interview of Roberta Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Interview of Ida Rosenberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Photo Identification of Ralph Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Wanted Card - Ralph Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Response to Office of Medical Examiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conferral with FAS Detective Foti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Interview of Confidential Informant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Interview of Ralph Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Interview of Ralph Sanders - Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Interview of Ralph Sanders - Transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Statement of Ralph Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Re-Interview of Roberta Augustus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Certification of Status - Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Dr. Corbin Salinger - Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Transcript of 12/7/15 Telephone Interview between ADA Quinlan and Dr. Salinger . . 43

Exhibit #1 (photo of top of escalator) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Exhibits #2, #3 and #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Exhibit #5 (photo of bottom of escalator) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Exhibit #6 (photo showing escalator) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Exhibit #7 (photo of train track) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Exhibit #8 (photo of deceased’s shirt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Exhibit #9 (diagram of scene) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Exhibit #10 (Stipulation of Detective Foti) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Exhibit #11 (Order of Protection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Jury Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Competition Rules

1. Team Composition: Each team must have four law students. All four students must advocate. Advocatesare not allowed to advocate on both sides of the case.

2. Team Identification: Teams will be identified by team letter and student names. No team may revealtheir school’s identity.

3. Disqualified Coaches: Coaches cannot be current employees of the Queens County District Attorney’sOffice.

4. Coaches’ Conduct: Coaches may be present to observe their own team’s trials - but not trials betweentwo separate schools. Coaches may not communicate in any way (verbally, nonverbally, electronically, etc.)with their team members for the duration of the trial, including recesses. Any intentional violation of thisrule could result in forfeiture of the round or disqualification from the competition.

5. Time Limits: There is an eighty (80) minute time limit for each side. The clock will stop for motions inlimine, objections, arguments on objections and any offers of proof. If a party chooses to conduct anevidentiary voir dire, the clock will run for the side conducting the voir dire and the clock will toll for theparty directing the witness. The amount of time spent on any part of the trial will be determined by eachteam.

6. Objections: The clock will stop for objections and offers of proof.

7. Division of Labor: One advocate will deliver the opening statement and the other will deliver the closingargument. Each advocate must conduct one direct and one cross examination. Each advocate must maketheir own objections and arguments. No “tag team” objections.

8. Motions in limine/Housekeeping: Each side will have four minutes to make motions and four minutesto respond. The total time for all motions is sixteen (16) minutes.

9. Applicable Law: New York State Criminal Procedure Law and case law will apply for this competition.Federal rules of evidence are NOT controlling. The students will need to cite the principle of law in makingtheir arguments to the court. It is not necessary that the advocates cite the case.

10. New York State Criminal Jury Instructions: Relevant New York State Criminal Jury Instructions areprovided. These are the only instructions that will be given and the only statements of the applicablesubstantive law.

11. Witness Examination: There will be direct examination and cross examination. Re-direct examinationis permitted if the questions fall within the scope of matters covered on cross examination. Re-cross is alsopermitted if the questions fall within the scope of matters covered on re-direct examination. No re-re directexamination is permitted.

1

12. Exhibits: Exhibits and enlargements will be supplied by the Queens District Attorney’s Office. Eachteam must choose two (2) enlargements out of the four (4) exhibits that they wish to be enlarged. Thisrequest MUST be made by October 14th. Outside exhibits or enlargements are not permitted. Theenlargements will be provided to the teams on October 29th. All exhibits in the file are authentic. Inaddition, each exhibit contained in the file is the original of that exhibit, unless otherwise noted on theexhibit or as established by the evidence.

13. Diagrams/Demonstratives/Charts: Teams may NOT create their own exhibits. All exhibits must besupplied by the Queens District Attorney’s Office. Teams are permitted to make markings on the exhibitsduring the course of the trial - but all markings must be made with a dry-erase marker which will beprovided.

14. Gender of Witnesses: Detective Bernard Potter and Ralph Sanders are male. Roberta Augustus isfemale. Dr. Corbin Salinger can be either male or female. If a student playing the role is of the oppositegender, then that student must assume the gender of the witness while playing the role.

15. Invented Facts on Direct: Other than what is contained in the problem, there is nothing exceptional orunusual about the background of any of the witnesses or the defendant that would enhance or detract fromtheir credibility. Advocates may not, on direct examination, have their witnesses add facts or informationnot contained in their prior statements, testimony, the case problem or “reasonable inferences” therefromto bolster their credibility. Witnesses also cannot invent people or evidence not mentioned in the fact pattern.If a fact is deemed “invented” by the cross-examiner, he/she may choose to impeach by omission.Impeachment by omission is the only remedy for an “invented” fact on direct examination. Stating thatevidence is “beyond the record” will not be entertained as a proper objection.

16. “Reasonable Inference”: Is defined as a fact that is likely to be true, given all the facts of the case. Noinferred fact may be material. A material fact is either (a) a fact that changes the merits of either side of thecase; or (b) bears on the credibility of any witness or litigant.

17. Cross Examination on Missing Facts: Cross examiners are allowed to ask questions about facts notcontained in the fact pattern. For instance, if a police officer’s prior testimony is silent as to whether he/shesearched for video surveillance, then the defense attorney can ask questions such as: “You did not searchfor video surveillance, did you?”

18. Scoring: Each advocate will be evaluated on their total performance based on a scale of 1 - 15. Scoresfor individual components of the trial will not be given.

19. Score sheets will be mailed to the competing schools. The comments section will remain confidentialand will not be mailed to the competing schools.

20. Protests: If a team believes that their opponent has violated a tournament rule listed above, and choosesto protest the round, the team’s coach must do so at the next “break” in the proceeding. The protest will bedecided by a three person committee from the Queens District Attorney’s office.

21. Signatures: All documents containing a signature line are deemed to have been signed by the namedindividual.

2

22. 2016 is the year in which this case comes to trial.

23. The People may call their witnesses in any order.

24. The defense must call the defendant first.

25. The People MUST introduce the defendant’s second statement to Detective Potter. TheyMAY introduceany other statements by the defendant.

26. The information attributed to Ida Rosenberg in the ‘Complaint Follow-Up Information,’ dated August21, 2015, is admissible by either party. The objections based on hearsay and the confrontation clause havebeen overruled. Any prior bad acts of the defendant contained within the “Complaint Follow-UpInformation,” should be the subject of a Molineux or Sandoval Application by the People. Redactions ofIda Rosenberg’s testimony will only be made as a result of the Court’s ruling on Molineux or SandovalApplications. No other grounds for redactions will be entertained.

27. The 911 phone call placed by Roberta Augustus is authentic. Roberta Augustus must testify that sherecognizes the voice of the caller as her own, and that the recording is a fair and accurate recording of theconversation she had with the 911 dispatcher.

28. Doctor Corbin Salinger is NOT permitted to testify to the conclusion that any of the defendant’sstatements were false. See the jury instruction on Expert Testimony.

29. Teams are NOT permitted to use outside reference material to challenge Dr. Corbin Salinger’stestimony.

30. The following definitions of terms are controlling for this trial:

Social Psychology is the studyof the manner in which the personality, attitudes, motivations,and behavior of the individual are influenced by social groups.

Forensic Psychology is the interaction of the practice or study of psychology and the law.

Anxiety Disorder is a condition that causes the sufferer to experience excessive andunrealistic worry and tension, even in the absence of an objective cause.

Panic Disorder is closely associated with anxiety disorder, and results in periodic feelingsof terror that can strike without warning and can be marked by physical symptoms likeexcessive sweating, chest pains and heart palpitations.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears(obsessions) that lead one to do repetitive behaviors (compulsions).

Agoraphobia is a fear of spaces where the sufferer may feel trapped, fearful or embarrassedand from which he sees no escape.

3

Substantive Stipulations

1. No lesser included offenses may be argued to, or considered by, the jury.

2. The District Attorney and the defense hereby stipulate that Detective Potter conducted a search of theArcher Avenue/Sutphin Boulevard subway station and that all cameras located inside and outside of thestation were not working on the morning of the incident. He also conducted a search of an area three blocksaround the subway station, in all directions, for surveillance cameras and none were found.

3. All substantive hearings were completed and all motions to suppress the defendant’s statements or anyidentification procedures were denied in their entirety and cannot be reargued in a pre-trial motion.

4. A single bullet was recovered from the deceased during the autopsy and sent to the NYPDBallistics Laboratory for comparison. The single bullet recovered from the deceased was fired from the samegun that discharged the shell casing recovered from the crime scene. (See Stipulation of Detective Foti).

5. The District Attorney and the defense hereby stipulate that the cause of Eva Rosenberg’s death was asingle gunshot wound to the chest.

6. The drugs found on the defendant at the time of his arrest were analyzed by the New York City Laboratoryand were found to consist of 4 100MG pills of Zoloft.

7. The Order of Protection in the file is the order recovered by Det. Potter from the deceased’s purse. It isa certified public document and may be admitted by either party without objection.

4

SCORE SHEET (sample)

ROUND #: _____

EVALUATOR: _________________________________

PROSECUTION TEAM LETTER: _______

ADVOCATE NAME: _____________________________(Circle 1)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


DEFENSE TEAM LETTER: _______



No two advocates may receive the same score. The final score cannot be a tie. If either happens, theevaluator must mark a different score.

SCORING RUBRIC:

15 - This advocate’s performance was equivalent to a seasoned attorney in the county.

13/14 - This advocate’s performance was equivalent to a well regarded young attorney in the county.

10/11/12 - This advocate’s performance was equivalent to an attorney in their first one or two years of practice.

8/9 - This advocate’s performance was a solid job by a law student about to enter the legal profession.

6/7 - This advocate’s performance was a good job by a law student.

5 - This advocate’s performance was mediocre for a law student.

1/2/3/4 - This advocate’s performance was below the standard expected of a law student.

5

SCORING

Advocates will be evaluated for each part of the trial and a final grade will be assigned based on theadvocate’s complete performance of the following phases:

! Opening Statement! Closing Argument! Direct Examination! Cross Examination! Motions/Objections/Legal Arguments! Use of Exhibits/Foundations! Style, Demeanor, and Professionalism

In scoring judges should consider:

! Effective presentation of witnesses and exhibits! Coherence and clarity of presentation! Ability to argue! Effectiveness of delivery! Poise and demeanor! Focus on relevant issues! Use of most persuasive evidence! Logical ordering of evidence and effective use of time! Originality and creativity! Effectiveness in responding to opposing evidence, arguments, and surprises

Evaluations should not be affected by personal views of the merits of the case, but should focus on thepersuasiveness of the presentations.

6

I N D I C T M E N TS U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

C O U N T Y O F Q U E E N S

---------------------------------------------------------------THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK :

:AGAINST :

: INDICTMENT NO.RALPH SANDERS, : 9017/2015

DEFENDANT ::

---------------------------------------------------------------

PENAL LAW §125.25-1 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE (1)PENAL LAW §215.51 (b) (i) CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN THE FIRST DEGREE

A TRUE BILL------------------------------------------------ DISTRICT ATTORNEYFOREMAN

-7-

FIRST COUNT

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF QUEENS, BY THIS INDICTMENT, ACCUSE THE

DEFENDANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE COMMITTED AS

FOLLOWS:

THE DEFENDANT, ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 21, 2015, IN THE COUNTY OF QUEENS,

WITH INTENT TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF EVA ROSENBERG, CAUSED THE DEATH OF

EVA ROSENBERG BY SHOOTING HER WITH A WITH A PISTOL.

SECOND COUNT

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF QUEENS, BY THIS INDICTMENT, ACCUSE THE

DEFENDANT OF THE CRIME OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN THE FIRST DEGREE

COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS:

THE DEFENDANT, ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 21, 2015, IN VIOLATION OF A DULY

SERVED ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED BY JUDGE REBECCA ZABO OF THE QUEENS

COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT, OF WHICH ORDER THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL

KNOWLEDGE, HAVING BEEN PRESENT AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED, DID

INTENTIONALLY PLACE EVA ROSENBERG , A PERSON FOR WHOSE PROTECTION

SAID ORDER WAS ISSUED, IN REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL INJURY OR DEATH,

BY DISPLAYING A DEADLY WEAPON, TO WIT, A PISTOL.

RICHARD A. BROWNDISTRICT ATTORNEY

-8-

911 TranscriptDate of Call: 8/21/15

Time of Call: 1010 hrs

Operator: 911, what is your emergency?

Caller: A woman’s been shot! We need an ambulance!

Operator: Where are you?

Caller: Please hurry there’s a lot of blood!

Operator: Ma’am! Where are you?

Caller: I’m in the Sutphin Boulevard subway station.

Operator: Which platform?

Caller: He just ran passed me and threw something onto the tracks!

Operator: Listen to me! You need to calm down. I can’t send help until I know where you are! What

subway are you by the E or the J?

Caller: I’m at the top of the escalator above the E train.

Operator: What is your name ma’am?

Caller: Roberta. Roberta Augustus.

Operator: Did you see who shot her? Is that person still there?

Caller: He just ran away down the escalator right past me and got on a train.

Operator: What did he look like?

Caller: He was white, skinny. Maybe five and a half feet tall.

Operator: Hair color?

Caller: Dark. Slicked back.

Operator: You said he got on a train, which one and what direction?

Caller: He got on the E train going towards Kew Gardens

Operator: Ok, help is on the way. What happened?

Caller: I couldn’t really see. It looked like they were arguing going up the stairs and then there was

a loud bang.

Operator: Did you see him holding a gun?

Caller: No. He looked like he had his hands on her, like holding her in place while he said

something to her. I think they knew each other. Please tell them to hurry. She’s really

losing a lot of blood.

-9-

Operator: EMS and PD have been notified and are on their way please hang on, what did you see after

his hands were on her?

Caller: I thought I heard her say something like, “this is over!” Then there was a struggle at the top

of the escalator. Looked like they were grabbing at something but I couldn’t really see.

Then there was a shot.

Operator: So you didn’t see him shoot?

Caller: No. They were at the top of the escalator right next to each other almost out of view when

the gun went off. Oh thank God, I hear the police.

Caller: He went that way! He went that way!

Operator: Are you with the Police?

Caller: ….yes and EMS is coming down the stairs.

Operator: Ok, I’m going to let you go.

-10-

POLICE DEPARTMENTCITY OF NEW YORK

COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UPINFORMATIONAL

August 21, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergResponse to the Scene

At 1025 hours on this date the undersigned responded to the E Line subway station at Archer Avenueand Sutphin Blvd regarding patrol notification of a shooting incident on an escalator. Upon arrival theundersigned made the following observations:

FDNY EMTs were on scene and transporting victim to Jamaica Hospital. Victim wasidentified as Eva Rosenberg f/w, 48 y/o, address 40-94 12th Street Astoria, NY. Victimconsidered likely.

A crime scene had been established with yellow NYPD tape around the perimeter of the topof the easternmost escalator from the E train platform to the exit leading to the clerk’s booth.Pooled blood and blood stains were noted along with debris from EMT efforts at the top ofthe escalator leading from the E train platform.

The scene was guarded by PO Milone, Transit District 20, Shield #6805 who reports that hewas assigned to Post 2050 and was by the clerk’s booth on the South Side of Archer Avenueat approximately 10:10am when he heard screams coming from the escalator approachingthe mezzanine. PO Milone ran in the direction of the screams and observed the victim lyingprone at the top of the escalator. A woman was pointing toward the E train platformshouting that “he went that way”. PO Milone, ran down the escalator but the train hadalready left the station. He returned to the victim at which time he first realized theseriousness of her condition and called for EMTs. Civilians gathered around exclaimed thatshe had been shot. PO Milone had not heard a gunshot from his post but believes that mayhave been due to the distance of his post from the scene. PO Milone checked for a carotidpulse with negative results and turned the victim onto her back and observed a wound to herchest that was bleeding heavily.At the top of the escalator near the pool of blood, I recovered the deceased’s purse. Thepurse contained a copy of an order of protection(family) from the NY City Criminal Court,Queens, dated August 18, 2015 signed by Judge Zabo ordering her protection from a RalphSanders.

PO Milone identified the witness as Roberta Augustus and had her escorted to the TransitPolice District Office.

-11-

Crime Scene Unit was notified and the undersigned conferred with Detective Lowry uponCSU arrival. The blood was photographed as well as the escalator from various angles thatare detailed in the Crime Scene Unit report. Detective Lowry and I inspected the tracksalong the Manhattan bound platform and approximately 150' east of the western end of theplatform. I recovered a silver .25 caliber Raven Arms semi-automatic pistol. I carefullyreleased the magazine with a pencil and discovered that it was loaded and secured it forlaboratory examination. Additionally, a single .25 cal. shell casing was recovered by theundersigned wedged between the moving stair and the lip of the escalator.

The undersigned, along with Detective McCabe responded to Jamaica Hospital atapproximately 1140 hrs and conferred with Dr. Gladys Chin who had pronounced EvaRosenberg dead upon arrival at 1045 hrs due to a single gunshot wound to the chest. Theundersigned observed that the victim’s clothing was still intact on her body, apparently dueto her being a DOA and no attempt to resuscitate was evident. The victim’s shirt indicatedthe presence of apparent gunshot residue amidst the blood stain surrounding the bullet entrywound. The entry wound was in the middle of the chest area.

Case: active

______________________________Bernard Potter, DT2

-12-



August 21, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergInterview of Roberta Augustus 39 y/o

At 1255 hours on this date the undersigned and Detective McCabe interviewed the above witness in the103rd Precinct Detective Squad Office regarding the above. Ms. Augustus reports as follows:

On this date at about 1000 hrs she was on the Manhattan bound E train platform at theArcher Avenue/Sutphin Boulevard Station. She had worked (she is a taxi dispatcher) untilabout 2am the prior evening and then met a gentleman friend at a local bar where he worksas a bartender. They partied a bit and spent the night together and she was on her way hometo Long Island City when she was awaiting a Manhattan bound train. She noticed whatsounded like an argument on the escalator heading to the mezzanine. The escalator wasabout 25 feet from her and at this time neither the escalator nor the platform were crowded.A man appeared to be upset with a woman who was riding up the escalator beside him tohis left and he was saying something to her in a loud angry kind of voice. It sounded like“you got it coming”, and “it’s your own fault”, but she is not certain of the exact words. Thewoman was slightly taller than the man, who appeared to be holding her by the lapel of herblouse with his left hand and was holding his right hand in front of him, and she could notsee whether anything was in it. As the escalator rose, she began to lose sight of them. Thewoman said something back to him, like “it’s over” or “I want this over”. Then there wasa struggle between them and suddenly she heard a loud bang like a gunshot and moved closerand saw the woman lying on the floor at the top of the escalator with the man standing besideher for a moment. Suddenly the man ran down the escalator against the direction of traveland ran past her. Ms. Augustus got on the escalator to help the woman and the train pulledout of the station. When she got to the top of the escalator, she could see there was a poolof blood surrounding the woman and a couple of other people had come over to help. Veryshortly thereafter a police officer arrived and started to attend to her.

-13-

Ms. Augustus stated that she believed that the man and woman were known to each other andthat it did not appear to be a robbery attempt. Although she could not clearly hear what thewoman said, she did hear the word “over” and she was definitely responding quietly to whatthe man said. They just gave the appearance of two people who had a relationship of somesort. The man did not take anything from her that Ms. Augustus was able to see. Shedescribed the man as white, about 5'7" tall and thinly built with a gaunt face and thin, slickedback dark brown hair. He was wearing washed out denim jeans and a similar looking whiteor washed out denim button down shirt.

Case: active


______________________________Roberta Augustus

-14-



August 21, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergInterview of Ida Rosenberg 20 y/o

On this date at 1310 hrs, the undersigned and Detective McCabe responded to the Popeye’s Chickenat 186-216 Horace Harding Expressway where we met Ida Rosenberg, daughter of the deceased, EvaRosenberg. Ms. Rosenberg is an employee at the restaurant and she accompanied the undersigned to the103rd Precinct Detective Squad where we informed her of the death of her mother. She supplied thefollowing with regard to her parents’ relationship:

Her father’s name is Ralph Sanders. He is about 5'7" tall and is very thin. He has slickedback, receding brown hair. Her father has been on a disability pension from the Army fromwell before she was born. She has never known him to work and doesn’t know what hisofficial disability is, but it is of a psychological nature. He’s always been high strung andhe does odd things, like carry large amounts of money on him because he is afraid of banksand he’s terrified of having no money so he’s always been obsessive about what her motherwould spend money on even though she has always been pretty frugal. The only thing Idaknows for sure that is wrong with him is that he is a heroin abuser. Ida explained that herfather had been physically abusive toward her mother since she (Ida) was very young. Theyhave been together all her life but they never formally wed. Ida admitted that she never likedher father and was very glad when her mother finally got him out of the house. He wasalways the disciplinarian and would punish her when she got caught smoking pot or stayingout too late. Her mother was much more laid back about those things and besides, Ida wasgrateful that her mother recognized that she had no right to criticize her drinking or smokingpot when her parents both used drugs. Ida emphasized that her father would scream at herand carry on trying to ground her for this stuff when he was a “useless junkie” himself whonever did an honest day’s work in his life. She scoffed at his disability, saying, “so what ifhe is crazy? Plenty of crazy people have jobs”.

Ida is aware that her father owned a handgun. It was a small silver gun. He had it in thehouse for years but she never remembers him ever taking it outside. They kept it forprotection and both of her parents were comfortable with it but Ida never touched it herself.Sometimes, if her dad was not home and there was a commotion or trouble outside the frontdoor, her mom would pick up the gun and stand by the front door with it in case anyone triedto break in.

-15-

Her parent’s problems had escalated in the past two months as her mother had begun to breakaway from her father’s control and began to “live her own life”. Both her parents wereheroin users for most of Ida’s life but her mother had been on a methadone maintenanceprogram for over a year and was starting to take college courses which her father did not like.One day in June, she woke up to the sound of their fighting and went into the bathroom tosee her mother with a cut on her lip. Her father then tried to strike her mother with a cane,but Ida stopped him. Her father had never struck Ida, just her mother.

After that, Ida accompanied her mother on a trip to North Carolina where they visited withfamily for a couple of weeks and her mother determined that she was going to leave Ralphand move in with Ida’s maternal grandmother in Woodhaven, Queens. When they arrivedback in New York sometime in mid July, they moved in with her grandmother but Ralphknew this and he would show up even though her grandmother made it clear he was notwelcome. Ida would frequently accompany her mother to her clinic in Jamaica to obtain hermethadone dose and on two occasions she saw her father lurking around the clinic, but hedid not approach them while Ida was present.

On August 18, her mother told her about another confrontation with her father that took placenear her grandmother’s home earlier that day. Her father urged her mother to return to theapartment in Astoria which she refused to do. He then threatened her with a pair of pliersand stuck them into her neck, but did not break the skin. At this time she convinced hermother to go to the police and have him arrested, which she did. The police arrested him thatday and the judge issued an order of protection so he had to stay away from her home, whichtechnically was still the apartment in Astoria. They decided to take advantage of that andhave the locks changed on the apartment and move back in there.

Last night, August 20, at about 2100 hrs, her father called Ida on her cell while she wasworking and asked her to meet him at the apartment to let him in and he promised he wouldjust get clothes and leave. Ida agreed but she didn’t believe that was all he wanted. Sheknew that her father could access the apartment if he really tried because he had done so inthe past when her mom would lock him out. He had a way of jimmying the kitchen windowabove the fire escape with a wire hanger. So she called PO Lipansky, the 114 precinctDomestic Violence Officer who attempted to rendezvous with her father instead, but POLipansky reported that Mr. Sanders did not show at the appointed time at the apartment.

Case: active


-16-



August 22, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergPhoto Identification of Ralph Sanders

On this date at 1015 hrs the undersigned together with Detective Scarborough conducted a photoidentification procedure involving subject Ralph Sanders. We went to the residence of eyewitness RobertaAugustus in Long Island City with a photo display folder containing a 6 photo spread. I obtained a copy ofthe arrest photo of Ralph Sanders from his August 18th arrest for menacing Eva Rosenberg with pliers. I alsoentered the descriptive factors given by Ms. Augustus into the NYPD photo manager system which provided179 photos of males meeting the criteria from which to chose. I selected five filler photos from among themand entered them into the photo spread. I placed the photo of Ralph Sanders in position #4.

Once at her residence the undersigned explained that we would like her to look at a group of sixphotographs to see if she recognized any of them. I explained that the man from the escalator may or maynot be among the photos and that neither Detective Scarborough nor myself know who the man on theescalator is. I further instructed her that I would show her the photo spread and ask her whether sherecognized anyone. She was to identify a photo only if she was sure that she recognized the person in thephoto. I would then ask her the number of the photo and from where she recognized that person. Ms.Augustus acknowledged that she understood my instructions. I then opened the folder and placed the photospread in front of her. I asked her if she recognized anyone. She replied, “#4.” I asked her where sherecognized him from and she said, “he is the man on the escalator.”

Case: active

_________________________Bernard Potter, DT2

-17-



August 22, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergWanted Card - Ralph Sanders

On this date at approximately 1445 hrs the undersigned created a wanted card for Ralph Sandersbased upon the positive identification of the suspect’s photograph by eyewitness Roberta Augustus and thecorroborative information supplied by Ida Rosenberg.

The card was distributed to all NYPD precincts, TPD, HPD, NY City HHC and PAPD-NY/NJcommands for immediate distribution and posting.

_________________________________Bernard Potter, DT2

-18-



August 23, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergResponse Office of Medical Examiner

On this date at approximately 0810 hrs, the undersigned, together with Detective McCabe visitedthe Office of the Medical Examiner at Queens Hospital Medical Center and conferred with Deputy ChiefMedical Examiner, Dr. Constance Ambrosino. Dr. Ambrosino had completed the autopsyof Eva Rosenbergand confirmed the cause of death as a single gunshot wound to the chest which perforated the heart. Duringthe autopsy procedure, Dr. Ambrosino removed a single copper jacketed projectile from the body which sheturned over to the custody of the undersigned who transported it to the Firearms Analysis Section inconnection with the Crime Scene Unit case on the above referenced incident.

Dr. Ambrosino examined the clothing and confirmed that the blood stain surrounding the entrywound on the victim’s outer garment also included patterned soot powder residue which she stated wasinconsistent with a contact wound but was consistent with the muzzle of the weapon being some shortdistance from the target garment upon firing. The victim’s shirt containing the said residue was turned overto the undersigned along with a photograph of the shirt marked with the locations of the soot powder residueradial pattern. The undersigned transported it to the Firearms Analysis Section for further comparisontesting.

Case: active


-19-



August 24, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergConferral with FAS Detective Foti

On this date at approximately 1350 hrs, the undersigned conferred with Detective Dominic Foti ofthe Firearms Analysis Section. Detective Foti conducted a microscopic comparison between the shell casingfound at the top of the escalator and a test firing from FAS supply ammunition that he fired from the .25caliber Raven Arms pistol that the undersigned recovered from the E train subway tracks on August 21,2015. Detective Foti concluded from his microscopic comparison that the shell casing found at the top ofthe escalator was fired from that same .25 caliber Raven Arms pistol.

Further, Detective Foti reported that he conducted a test of the same pistol to determine soot powderresidue ranges. He fired the weapon at ranges of increasing distances of two inches per firing at blank papertargets. He continued the firings until the weapon no longer left any soot residue which occurred at adistance of 18". He repeated each of the firings three times to ensure consistency in the resulting pattern.He then compared the paper targets to the photograph submitted by the Medical Examiner and concludedthat the weapon was fired from a minimum of 6" to a maximum of 12" with the most consistent soot patternexhibited by the tests conducted at a range of 8".

Case: active


-20-



August 26, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergResponse to PAPD Bus TerminalInterview of confidential informant #4321

On this date at 1615 hrs I responded with Detective Scarborough to the Port Authority Bus Terminalin Manhattan and interviewed NYPD Confidential Informant #4321 who was directed to my attention byhis MOS handler. CI #4321 is a male Hispanic, approximately 30 y/o who met the undersigned at the PAPDBus Terminal Command at 41st Street and 9th Avenue claiming that he observed a man in the terminal whowas wanted for shooting his wife in Queens. The CI indicated that the suspect was at the end of the corridor.He initially reported his sighting to PAPD Sergeant Guarino who was aware, from a roll call briefing of twodays prior, of the above referenced homicide and contacted the undersigned along with the CI. Upon myarrival, the CI indicated the direction in which he had observed the suspect and accompanied the undersignedto the location where the CI remained in an obscure location that was still visible to me. The CI pointed atthe subject, Ralph Sanders who was standing on a ticket line. I recognized the subject as Ralph Sanders fromthe arrest photo of 9-18-2015. As I approached in order to confirm the subject’s identification, the subjectappeared to notice that I was focusing on him and abruptly left the ticket line and walked briskly away. Idetained Ralph Sanders and asked him to produce identification. Subject’s identification confirmed that itwas Ralph Sanders and the undersigned took him into custody.

The undersigned conducted a search of Sanders’ person upon return to the PAPD desk. Thefollowing items of property were to be invoiced:

1. Wallet containing $36 USC and NY State DMV Identification for Ralph Sanders2. $17,000.00 USC in $100 bills - 2 bundles wrapped in rubber bands (this currency wasrubber banded to Sanders’s ankles)3. One pair needlenose pliers4. 4 pills, blue in color, marked “ZOLOFT” and “100 MG”.

Item #4 to be sent to the Narcotics Laboratory for analysis.

Case: active


-21-



August 26-27, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergInterview of Ralph Sanders

On this date at 1810 hrs the undersigned and Detective Scarborough arrived at the 103rd PrecinctDetective Squad Office and secured subject Ralph Sanders in the interview room. He was offered food andbeverage and chose Chinese chicken and broccoli and a coke. He was provided with the food which he ateand then was given an opportunity to use the restroom. Upon his return to the interview room he was offeredcoffee which he declined. A bottle of spring water was provided to him.

Mr. Sanders was read his Miranda rights which he waived and he agreed to speak with DetectiveScarborough and the undersigned. The entire interview was recorded with video and sound. Upon placingsubject in the interview room, the undersigned turned on the switch activating the video equipment whichran continuously from his entry into the room until the termination of the interview at approximately 1925hrs.

After the completion of the interview, subject Sanders was left secured (unrestrained) in theinterview room while the undersigned conferred with other MOS and superiors and performed other policeduties in conjunction with the arrest of the subject Ralph Sanders.

At approximately 2330 hrs on August 26, the undersigned entered the interview room and continuedthe interview with subject Sanders seeking clarification of certain points of detail which subject Sandersprovided. In doing so he amended some of the statements that he had made in the initial interview withrespect to how the injury to Ms. Rosenberg was inflicted.

At approximately 0330 hrs. on August 27, upon conferring with squad commander, Lt. Reardon,regarding downloading the interview, the undersigned discovered that I failed to activate the recordingequipment upon re-entering the interview room at 2330 hrs. Accordingly, it was decided to summarize ina DD5, the genesis of the interview that commenced at approximately 2330 hours while it was fresh in mymind and then ask subject Ralph Sanders to sign a written statement containing the newly elicited facts. Icompleted the DD5 and the written statement and then brought subject Sanders back to the interview roomfrom the holding cell and reviewed the written statement with him, which he then signed.

________________________Bernard Potter, DT2

-22-



August 26-27, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergInterview of Ralph Sanders - addendum

As indicated in the original DD-5 on this subject, the undersigned acknowledges having inadvertentlyneglected to activate the recording equipment upon commencing a re-interview of subject Ralph Sandersat approximately 2330 hours on August 26th. It was decided that the genesis of the conversation that wasnot recorded be summarized in a DD5 and that subject Sanders be given an opportunity to review and signa written statement that included the new developments in his statement. The summary of our conversationis as follows:

At about 2330 hours on August 26, the undersigned and Detective Scarborough spoke with RalphSanders in a follow up to Mr. Sanders’s original statement made earlier on August 26th. Mr. Sandersconfirmed that his wife had obtained an order of protection against him as a result of his having beenarrested for threatening her with a pair of pliers. Mr. Sanders stated regarding that incident that althoughhe and Eva did have a heated argument and he may have said some threatening things, he did not actuallyattack her with the pliers which he routinely kept on his person. Mr. Sanders also confirmed that on the dateof Eva’s death, Mr. Sanders went to the E train subway to confront her because he knew she would be theresometime that morning in order to obtain her daily prescription for methadone. Mr. Sanders admitted thathe owned a firearm; a silver .25 cal. Ravens Arms semi automatic pistol. He was shown the pistol that wasrecovered from the tracks by the undersigned and the Crime Scene detectives on August 21. Mr. Sandersidentified it as his own. He had stated initially that he discovered to his surprise that his wife was carryingthe gun on the day of her death and drew it from her purse when he asked her for the apartment keys. Heinitially reiterated that his wife was shot when, during the struggle over the weapon, he managed to turn thegun away from himself and into her chest. Det. Scarborough and I confronted him with our belief that hisstory was not credible. We said that stuff only happens in the movies and no judge is going to believe that.We said that the judge who was going to hear his case was going to see his statements and was probably notgoing to be happy with him because it was clear he was lying. This was said in order to prompt him towardfurther discussion of the issue which he was reluctant to discuss candidly. In truth, we did not know whatany judge handling the case might think about his behavior. I also stated that Eva was not shot at the closerange that he described (this again, was more of an educated guess on my part since I did not have an autopsyreport. I did see the wound on her body which was surrounded by what looked like a soot powder burnpattern around Ms Rosenberg’s shirt. I’m not an expert, but from my experience that would not be presentwith the kind of contact wound that he was describing). I urged him to tell the complete truth about it andnot half truths.

-23-

At around this time, Mr. Sanders grew quieter and appeared to become somewhat emotional. I toldhim that I understand that people get angry and that sometimes they are driven to do things they wouldn’tnormally do. I told him that I know that he shot Eva and that it would be good for him to just come out andsay it. He nodded but refused to verbalize how he shot Ms. Rosenberg so we suggested he demonstrate itwith his hands. He declined to do this so I simulated his holding the gun several inches from her chest andfiring a single shot, using Detective Scarborough standing to my left representing Ms. Rosenberg. Mr.Sanders then acknowledged that his prior statement about the struggle for the gun was false and that hebrought the gun with him and that I accurately demonstrated how he shot her.

We then discussed his flight from the scene on the E train and his subsequent whereabouts. He saidthat he made a trip to Atlantic City and that he lost some money gambling but that he was planning onturning himself in to Cardinal Dolan when we arrested him. He was very concerned about the $17,000 incash that he had on his person when he was arrested. He asked me to confirm the exact amount which I didand he asked me to promise that I would make sure his daughter got that money. Again, I agreed to this.

________________________Bernard Potter, DT2

-24-

INTERVIEW OF RALPH SANDERSAUGUST 26, 2015

TRANSCRIPT

The following is a complete transcription of the video recording of an interview of subject Ralph Sandersconducted by Detective Bernard Potter and Detective Richard Scarborough. The recording equipment wasactivated at 1812hrs. Detective Potter and Detective Scarborough entered the interview room with RalphSanders in handcuffs. Detective Potter removed the handcuffs and pulled out a chair at a table and thefollowing conversation ensued:

Det. Potter: Just make yourself comfortable for a minute, Ralph. There’s a couple of things Ihave to deal with right now, but we’ll be back in a couple. Hey, we’re orderingChinese. Let me get you something to eat.

Sanders: That’s OK

Det. Scarborough Its on us, come on, its dinner time, man. What do you want? Anything.

Sanders: OK Chicken and Broccoli, I guess.

Det. Potter: What else, a coke, sprite, water?

Sanders: Coke. Thank you.

Det. Potter: No problem. Just sit tight. We’ll be back soon.

At this point Detective Scarborough and Detective Potter left the room.

1827 hrs: Detective Potter entered the room followed by Detective Scarborough along with cartons of takeout food that Det. Potter placed in front of Sanders at the table. At this time Mr. Sanders stood up andmoved to a different place at the table with his back against a blank wall.

Det. Potter: Here you go, my man. What’s the matter, you don’t like that spot?

Sanders: I just like to be able to see everyone I’m talking to.

Det. Potter: No problem.

Det. Potter: This place is pretty good. Just opened about a year ago. Couldn’t get decent Chinesearound here for a while before. Rich, you remember that place on 158 we used to hitup sometimes.

Det. Scarborough: The guy with the birds? He closed like 4 years ago.

Det. Potter: Yeah, but its all we had. Crazy right? Only Chinese place around and the guy hadbirds in cages by the door. I guess he figured it gave the place character.

-25-

Det. Scarborough: I don’t know about character. It gave the place bird shit is all I could see.

Det. Potter: Right? Must have been a health code violation in that somewhere. Anyway, thekitchen looked clean enough and the food wasn’t bad, but the birds? Seriously, doyou want to eat in a restaurant with birds over your head?

Sanders: You guys know she shot herself, right? It was a total accident.

Det. Potter: We have plenty of time to talk about that Ralph. Let’s just eat first, OK.Mets are on a tear, huh? They could really do it this year, right?

Sanders: I’m not really into baseball. I just want that on the record right away, it was anaccident.

Det. Potter: No? Yankees, Mets. Not a fan?

Sanders: Yankees I guess but I don’t really follow.

Det. Scarborough: Good. Cause you know what? - they suck.

Det. Potter: After Jeter, it was all downhill for them. I’m telling you, one guy can really make ateam. He was the man.

Det. Scarborough: You’re just like the press, Bernie. Mets are in first place and all you can do is talkabout the freakin’ Yankees, retired Yankees even. I don’t know if you heard, butthey’re in like last place.

Det. Potter: Not last.

Det. Scarborough: Seriously, the Mets take sole possession of first and what do you hear in the press thesame day? Attention! Alex Rodriguez cut a fart in the dugout today. Here for areaction is Joe Girardi...

Det. Potter: Check it out. You said you weren’t hungry, Ralph. You ate every last grain of rice,man. Alright, let me clear this all out of the way. We’ll be back in a second. Youwant some coffee, Ralph?

Sanders: No, thanks.

Det. Potter: OK. We’ll be right back. Hey, do you need to use the men’s room? We might betalking for a while?

Sanders: Yeah, where is it?

Det. Scarborough: I’ll bring you down, c’mon.

-26-

At 1846 hours Detective Scarborough and Detective Potter left the room with Ralph Sanders.

At 1851 hours Detective Potter, Detective Scarborough and Ralph Sanders re-entered the room. Det. Potterplaced a bottle of water on the table in the spot at which he originally sat Sanders. Again, Sanders pickedup the bottle of water and shifted to a position at the table with his back to the wall. Potter then sat oppositehim at the table.

Det. Potter: OK, Ralph, let’s talk. Listen, we want to hear everything you have to say. We wantto make sure we understand your side of all of this, but first I have to make sure youunderstand your rights, OK?

Sanders: Uh huh

Det. Potter: (Reading) You have the right to remain silent, do you understand?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, do youunderstand?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: You have the right to speak with an attorney and to have the attorney present withyou while you are being questioned. Do you understand?

Sanders: Yes.

Det. Potter: If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before anyquestioning. Do you understand?

Sanders: You guys know I have plenty of money.

Det. Potter: OK. But just tell me whether you understand what I read to you.

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: Now that I have advised you of these rights are you willing to talk to us?

Sanders: About what?

Det. Potter: Ralph, obviously about Eva. We want to know whatever you can tell us. Are youwilling to do that?

Sanders: Like I said, it was an accident. And by the way, when did we all become friends,calling me by my first name? Just ask me what you want to know and I’ll tell you.

-27-

Det . Potter: OK Mr Sanders. Let’s start with some background. How long were you togetherfor.

Sanders: Like 25 years.

Det. Potter: And Ida is your daughter, right?

Sanders: You talked to Ida?

Det. Scarborough: Ralph, sorry, Mr. Sanders, we want to focus on what you have to say, not whatanyone else says, OK?

Det. Potter: Look, we know there was trouble between the two of you. She had the order ofprotection and all.

Sanders: She totally exaggerated all of that. I didn’t threaten her with no pliers. She knowsI carry that little needlenose around all the time so she just told the cops I used them.We had an argument, I admit that. Maybe I said some harsh things or threats or whatnot, but I didn’t use the pliers against her.

Det. Potter: We don’t really need to talk about the details of that case, Mr. Sanders. It reallydoesn’t matter much now. But the two of you had your problems is all we’re gettingat.

Sanders: Who doesn’t have problems with his wife?

Det. Potter: Look, just be up front with us. It was more than arguments. She was leaving youand she got an order of protection against you. And that had to piss you off, right?Lets face it, you were pissed off at her, weren’t you?

Sanders: I think it was that frickin’ methadone she started. I’m telling you that shit messeswith your head. I won’t go near it. Keep your dope clean. You gotta figure out howto control your life on your own, you know? And those bitches she’s been talkingto. All about living your own life, being a full woman and all that shit, like what?Now you ignore your man, pretend he don’t exist?

Det. Scarborough: How long you been using?

Sanders: Long time. Since the Army. Since Bahrain after the Gulf war in like ‘92. But Iknow how to control myself. Eva was weak though, never could. Me, I never usedmore than like 4 bags a day, tops. She was like, out of control. And a lot too.Pissing through my money, pretending its hers.

Det. Potter: I understand, Mr. Sanders. Its frustrating. Let’s talk about last week though, whenEva died. We know that you went to Archer to look for her that morning. Just tellus why.

-28-

Sanders: She locked me out, man. Shut me out totally. I can’t even get a clean shirt or evenunderwear? I had to at least get in to get some of my shit, you know?

Det. Scarborough: Alright, look, man. We can be all formal and call you Mr. Sanders if you want. Butdon’t play us for stupid. You’ve been using for 20 years, this is your place all thattime. Are you telling us you’re not crafty enough to get into your own apartmentwithout getting keys from her? Right. I mean, lets be real.

Sanders: OK but it’s the principle of the thing. She got no right to be shutting me out like that.That’s what we were arguing about.

Det. Potter: (To Scarborough) OK. I get it, no Rich, he’s right. I understand why he’s pissed.Maybe it could have been handled differently, but the man has a point. I canunderstand how that could make you very upset. So, you were waiting for herthen...at the subway?

Sanders: Right. I knew she was going to need to get to her program there on Archer, so Iwaited for her and of course, I’m right. Here she comes off the subway.

Det. Potter: OK, then take us through it step by step. Let us understand how she ended up gettingshot.

Sanders: OK. Like I said, all I wanted was the keys, and OK, more than that. I just wanted toexplain things to her. Get back to normal, you know? So I come up to her as she’sgetting on the escalator and I grabbed her by the shirt, you know, not hard or nothing,just so she wouldn’t run up the stairs and try to make a scene or anything. I said,Eva, you know I need the keys, first of all. And that was it. That’s all I did.

Det. Potter: Well, OK, then what.

Sanders: Then all of a sudden she reaches into her purse. I’m thinking, “Well that was easy.She’s gonna give me the keys. But no, she pulls a gun out of the purse and points itat me, saying, “Ralph, I swear, I really swear. That’s it” or, “it’s over now”something like that.

Det. Potter: So you’re saying Eva had the gun?

Sanders: Exactly. It was my gun, you see. I had that gun for years in the house. You know,we kept it there for protection. You know, it’s the projects and all, so that’s all I hadit for. I swear to you guys I never took that gun out of the house and here she iscarrying it in her purse.

Det. Potter: So what happened?

-29-

Sanders: Well, I was shocked and I just reacted. I grabbed the gun over her hand and turnedit away from me. It just went off. It must have caused her finger to squeeze thetrigger. I don’t know. The next thing I know we’re on the top of the escalator andshe must have let go of the gun when she shot herself, so there I was holding it in myhand. She fell down and I kind of panicked, you know realizing how it was going tolook, with the restraining order and all, and the gun being mine and my prints areprobably on it even from all those years of having it at home, forgetting about evengrabbing it from her right there.

Det. Potter: So you grabbed it from her. Was that before she got shot?

Sanders: No, you guys need to listen better. You know what I mean - not grabbing it from her,I mean just like I said turning it away and ending up holding it.

Det Potter: So what did you do?

Sanders: I ran down to the platform and a train was in the station. I threw the gun onto thetracks under the train and got on. I wasn’t sure what I should do at the moment. Itlooked bad. I went to the bank and got all my money out of the safe deposit box andI went to AC for a couple of days. I needed to think.

At this point Det. Scarborough left the room briefly.

Det. Potter: Most people go to AC to gamble.

Sanders: I did a little, but mostly I just wandered around. I saw it on the news at a casino thatshe died and I just didn’t know what to do. So I wandered around for a few days. Icame back to the city cause I decided that I would try to see Cardinal Dolan. I wouldtell him everything and maybe he would come see you guys with me or something.

Det. Potter: The Cardinal? You were going to see him for what, like a confession?

Sanders: Something like that.

Det. Potter: But it was an accident, right? So, what did you have to confess?

Sanders: Not a confession really, just for help. (Sobbing slightly) Just help is all.

Detective Scarborough re-entered the room with a small pistol.

Det. Scarborough: Just let me just confirm this with you, Ralph. Is this your gun? (Showing)

Sanders: It looks like it. Raven Arms .25 auto.

Det. Scarborough: You don’t know the serial number do you?

Sanders: No. I got it on the street a long time ago.

-30-

Det. Pottter: OK Ralph. Just walk me through this again a little slower. You are on the escalatorstanding to Eva’s right side, right?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: So she’s right next to you on your left?

Sanders: Uh huh.

Det. Potter: And where is her purse?

Sanders: Over her right shoulder

Det. Potter: So kind of between the two of you?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter:: Eva is right handed?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: Which hand did she reach into the purse with?

Sanders: Her right, I think

Det. Potter: Well which hand did she point the gun at you with?

Sanders: Her right.

Det. Potter: And that’s when you grabbed it?

Sanders: Yes

Det. Potter: So how was the gun positioned when she got shot? Do it with me, so you can showme. Stand up, OK? (Standing) I’ll use my finger here to simulate the gun(demonstrating). Here I’m Eva and I’m standing right here to your left and I’mpointing it at you. What did you do?

Sanders: (Demonstrating) like this

Det Potter: So you turned the gun so it was almost completely turned around and the barrel isnow against Eva’s chest? And that’s when it went off?

Sanders: Right

Det Potter: You’re sure about that? The barrel of the gun was against her chest?

-31-

Sanders: Yeah, it had to be, cause she was struggling to keep it from me and she must haveaccidentally squeezed the trigger while it was against her chest.

Det. Potter: OK Ralph, OK. I think that’s about all for now.

Sanders: You believe me right? I swear it was an accident. I never wanted this to happen.

Det. Potter: OK. Just give us a few minutes.

Detective Potter and Detective Scarborough left the room at 1923 hrs.

-32-

Statement of Ralph Sanders

Last week on the morning of August 21, 2015, I went to the Jamaica Archer Avenue subway stationon the E line. I wanted to meet my wife Eva there. She had changed the locks on our apartment door andI was upset about that and she wouldn’t even talk to me about it. I brought my gun with me just to show herthat we really needed to talk and that she had to stop ignoring me. It’s a silver Raven Arms .25 automatic.Eva and I had been having marital problems. She was being really unreasonable so a few days before allthis happened we got into a bad argument on the street because she was totally ignoring me. I’m sure I saidsome nasty things and maybe even some threats but I didn’t use any pliers. I always carry those pliers onme to use as a tool and she knows that so I think she just planted that story to the cops. She’s kind of sneakythat way.

When I was on the platform I saw her get out of the Jamaica bound E train and go toward theescalator so I went up with her. I grabbed her by the shirt and told her she was making me do this. I pointedthe gun at her like Detective Potter demonstrated and she pulled away and I fired one shot. She fell downat the top of the escalator. I ran back down the escalator and threw the gun onto the tracks and got on aManhattan bound E train.

I got arrested at the bus terminal but I was going to turn myself in to Cardinal Dolan at Saint Patrick’sCathedral. I also had all my savings, $17,000 on me that I want to go to my daughter Ida. Detective Potterpromised he would get all $17,000 to her.

Dated: August 27, 2015, 0340 hrs______________________________Ralph Sanders


-33-



August 28, 2015

Re: Homicide of Eva RosenbergRe- interview of Roberta Augustus

At 1100 hours on this date the undersigned and Detective Scarborough re-interviewed the abovewitness in the 103rd pct Detective Squad Office. The purpose of the interview was to seek clarification ofher observations following the information provided by the subject, Ralph Sanders in his interviews. Theundersigned asked Ms. Augustus to attempt to recall the details of the confrontation between Mr. Sandersand Ms. Rosenberg on August 21st at the subway station.

Initially Ms. Augustus told us that she had seen accounts of the case in the news media andit confirmed her suspicion that the relationship was marked by domestic abuse. She statedthat she had suspected it right away on the day of the incident, herself having previously beenin a similar kind of abusive relationship. Since that relationship ended, she has completelychanged her attitude toward intimate relations and would never let a man treat herdisrespectfully again and that she is more determined than ever to see that justice is done inthis case.

Detective Scarborough and I assured her that we were doing everything in our power toensure that same result, but emphasized that all we needed from her was to try to recall theevents to the best of her ability and share that information with us, regardless of whether shethought it was helpful to the case or not. We emphasized that an honest and completerecollection of the events is all that we asked of her. She assured us that she would cooperatefully in that respect.

We went over her prior interview and asked Ms. Augustus if she could recall any moredetails about the encounter between them beyond what she had already reported. She statedthat the man was clearly the aggressor and he was dominating the woman. I pointed out thatshe had initially described the encounter before the shot as a “struggle”. She now stated thatshe chose her words poorly at that time. Mr. Sanders was grabbing her and Ms. Rosenbergdid not fight back before the shot was fired.

Ms. Augustus now states that she does not recall Ms. Rosenberg saying anything at all. Ireminded her that in our previous interview she stated that the woman (Ms. Rosenberg)stated to the man (Mr. Sanders) words like, “it’s over” or “I want this over”. Now she statesthat she does not recall hearing that from the woman (Ms. Rosenberg). She added as well

-34-

that after descending the escalator after the shot, the man (Mr. Sanders) looked back uptoward Ms. Rosenberg and said, “you had it coming”.

We asked Ms. Augustus if she could account for why she did not reveal this last detail tomyself and Detective McCabe when we first interviewed her on the date of the incident. Shereplied that she did not realize it was significant at the time.

Case: active


______________________________Roberta Augustus

-35-

CERTIFICATION OF STATUS

MOS: Sanders, RalphRank: SPCService: ArmyService #: 919-99-9999Status: Military Disabled- Retired

The current status of the above listed member of service is retired based upon a military disability.The onset date of the disability is January 14, 1996 based upon a diagnosis as follows:

9400 General Anxiety Disorder9404 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder9412 Panic Disorder/Agoraphobia

Disability determination date: 12-12 - 1997Retroactive application date: 01-14 - 1996

_________________________________Darius ParsonsAdmin Rec Spt #1

I hereby certify that the forgoing is anaccurate transcription of the originalrecord contained within the records ofthe United States Department ofDefense and maintained in theordinary course of the business of theDepartment of Defense by theundersigned under delegation ofauthority by the Secretary.

_________________________________Darius Parsons, Admin Rec Spt #1

-36-

Dr. Corbin J. Salinger, PhD, J.DInnocence Research Consultants, LLC

335 Arlington Terrace, Boulder, CO 80999(303) 555-9999

[email protected]

November 9, 2015Mr. Steven Goldenrod, Esq.Attorney for Ralph Sanders120-499 Queens BoulevardKew Gardens, NY 11415

Re:People v. Ralph Sanders

This report is given as per your request in the above referenced matter:

Background

I am the Hartwick Professor of Law and Psychology at the University of Kew Gardens, and formerlyan Associate Professor of Psychology and Criminology at the State University of New York at Forest Hills.My areas of research, training, and specialization include social psychology, criminology and criminal law.I have conducted extensive empirical research involving police interrogation practices, the psychology ofpolice interrogation and confessions, including police-induced false confessions, and erroneous convictions.In 2002 and 2003, as a field research project, I was invited to join with the Mocktrial City Police Departmentin Colorado in sitting in on and observing two hundred twenty-five felony interrogations. In 2004 I similarlyobserved seventy five videotaped interrogations in the Fictionville, Arizona Police Department. I haveanalyzed thousands of cases involving interrogations and confessions; I have researched, written, andpublished numerous peer reviewed articles on these subjects in scientific and legal journals; and I havewritten several books on these subjects, including Law Enforcement Interrogation Techniques (HorvathUniversity Press, 2008) and Confessions and Accuracy: A Correlation Analysis (Oxbreath University Press,2010).

I am regarded as a national expert on these topics, and I have won numerous awards for myscholarship and publications. My scholarship has been cited by Federal and State Appellate Courts onnumerous occasions. I have consulted on hundreds of occasions with criminal and civil attorneys onhundreds of cases involving disputed interrogations and/or confessions, and I have been qualified andtestified as an expert witness more than twenty five times in state and federal courts. I have consulted withpolice departments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada.

-37-

Additionally, I am a clinical psychologist, licensed by the State of Colorado where I maintain aclinical practice in social psychologyand forensic psychology. I have conducted extensive empirical researchinvolving the effects of intellectual impairment, immaturity and chemical and substance abuse on decisionmaking among adolescents as well as extensive research on factors influencing malleability, peer pressureand susceptibility to suggestion among adolescent and adult populations vis a vis the criminal justice system.I am not being compensated for my time.

II. Materials Reviewed

In conjunction with my preparation of this report, I have reviewed the following documents:

A Transcript of Interrogation of Ralph Sanders by NYPD August 26-27, 2015A Police Reports of Interrogations by Detective PotterA Autopsy Report re: death of Eva Rosenberg August 22, 2015A Crime Scene photos and report August 21, 2015A Report of Interview of Roberta Augustus, August 21, 2015

III. Professional Opinions

Based on the materials I have reviewed, in my professional opinion:

It has been well-documented that historically, many innocent people, suspected of crimes haveconfessed under police interrogation to crimes they did not commit. These false confessions have manytimes been established as “proven false confessions” through subsequent revelations, such as forensicexoneration, confessions by the truly guilty party, a revelation that the crime did not in fact occur oracknowledgment of error on the part of the law enforcement officials involved. There is ample research inpsychology, criminologyand sociologyon the factors that influence subjects of police interrogation to falselyconfess. This research has analyzed numerous police-induced false confessions and identified the personaland situational factors associated with, and believed to cause, false confessions.

The law enforcement community concedes that false confessions can and do occur and they occurunder circumstances of police interrogation. Law enforcement agencies now often include training on thepossibilityof false confessions and methods by which to avoid them. The actual number of false confessionsthat have been entered into evidence is difficult to identify precisely though social scientists havedocumented approximately four-hundred and fifty to five-hundred proven false confessions in America sincethe early 1970s, but the actual number is surely higher because it is very difficult to document them, largelybecause it is most often not possible to conclusively establish the confessor’s innocence. Rarely are casesexposed to so thorough a post-conviction review that independent evidence establishing their falsehoodcomes to light. Those in the category of “proven false confessions” in the scientific research literaturerepresent only a small fraction of the actual false confessions that have been made under policeinterrogation over the years. One would have to conclude that there have been many thousands of such falseconfessions resulting from police interrogation tactics that researchers are unable to uncover and classifyas proven false. Police interrogators even admit that they elicit false confessions in 4.78% of theirinterrogations.

-38-

In my research, I have become intimately familiar with police interrogation techniques that renderthe resulting confession suspect in terms of accuracy. It is not commonly understood that police detectivesare specially trained to exploit psychologically deceptive tactics that will motivate a suspect to alter hisinitial denial incrementally to an admission or full confession. Nor is it commonly understood that thesetechniques are effectively coercive or how they affect the resulting statements which are frequently untrue.That lack of understanding causes the average lay person to assume that a confession is true when it maynot be. In fact, innocent persons confess to crimes they did not commit and at times will implicate otherinnocents as accomplices.

In Mr. Sanders’s case, my review of the materials leads me to conclude that the interrogating officers(Detectives Potter and Scarborough) engaged in some classic examples of coercive interrogation techniquesthat risked eliciting a false confession from Mr. Sanders. First, they had already identified him as a suspectand presumed his guilt. Based upon my reading of the transcript of the interrogation, it is clear that thedetectives never considered the possibility that another individual may have been responsible for Ms.Rosenberg’s death. They began their inquiry with statements about what they “knew” Mr. Sanders had done.

Secondly, theyused false statements about the evidence theyhad that already implicated him. Withinthis category of coercive interrogation techniques, they used what we refer to in the literature as “falseevidence ploys” to elicit statements from him. Most lay people are not aware that the police are legallypermitted to use false evidence ploys and may be unaware that they have been utilized in eliciting aconfession. Two such examples are quite prominent. They claimed falsely that physical evidence about thewound was inconsistent with Mr. Sanders’s account. Although subsequent evidence established that thefiring location was farther away than initially stated, the investigating detective even conceded that he didnot know this at the time of the interrogation. Second, the detective characterized Mr. Sanders’s explanationas physically implausible, saying that such things “only happen in the movies”. There is, to my knowledge,no established determination that Mr. Sanders’s initial account of the confrontation could not have occurredprecisely as he described.

A third classic coercive interrogation technique the detectives employed is called “minimization andmaximization”. In this technique the interrogator will either inflate the anticipated judicial or legal responseto the subject’s initial denial of culpabilityor will understate the legal ramifications of the suspect confessingin the fashion the interrogator suggests. In this case, the detectives stated to Mr. Sanders that the judge hewas to appear before would be displeased with his initial statement because (In Detective Potter’s view) itlacked credibility. Detective Potter’s suggestion that Mr. Sanders alter his story to please the judge is anexample of both minimization and maximization. On the one hand he instilled an unjustified fear ofoffending the judge who is an authority figure (maximization) and suggested that to avoid this the bettercourse would be to confess that he stabbed the victim intentionally which would be seen as more honest andwould avoid compounding his crime with a lie (minimization).

Determining the Reliability of Incriminating Statements

Studying the psychology of police interrogation tactics is only one aspect of assessing the reliabilityof the resulting statements. Scientific researchers have also analyzed the indicia of reliability in true and falseconfession cases. To evaluate the likely reliability or unreliability of an incriminating statement, admissionor full confession from a suspect, scientific researchers analyze the extent to which the suspect’sincriminating statements fit the crime facts and/or corroborating evidence derived from the confession (sayfor example, the location of crime proceeds or a victim’s missing clothing weapons). This will test the

-39-

suspect’s actual knowledge of the crime. A statement that includes facts theretofore unknown or that arecorroborated by independent evidence tends to be more reliable because the confessor knows facts that onlythe perpetrator would know. Conversely, if the suspect’s statements are not corroborated, or more tellingly,contradicted by facts later revealed, but unknown at the time, that is a strong indicator of a false confession.

In Mr. Sanders’s case, his final statement is contradicted in some respect by the physical findingswhich are actually consistent with his initial statement. According to the crime scene report, the deceasedhad a purse with her which was described as “open” and beside her body. This is consistent with Mr.Sanders’s initial statement that Ms. Rosenberg retrieved the gun from her own purse and the two thenstruggled for it. Had Mr. Sanders brought the gun with him as indicated in his revised, final statement therewould be no reason why Ms. Rosenberg’s purse would be open.

Contamination with Implanted Facts

Skillful interrogators do far more than simply make inquiry of the subject regarding a defined fact scenario.Investigators in practice frequently shape the suspect’s statement to enhance the persuasiveness of the finalnarrative and hence increase the likelihood of conviction. The interrogator often will have the suspectinclude an explanation of motive for the crime, the perpetrator’s mental and emotional state and will alsohave the suspect include a statement of regret about having committed the crime. The interrogator will alsooften seek to enhance the reliability of the statement by having the suspect state that he was well fed, givenplenty to drink and was allowed to use restroom facilities at will. Even blanket statements that no coercionwas used in the rendering of the statement are often included in the final product. Above all, the interrogatorseeks to have the suspect include specific statements about the crime that only the perpetrator will know.This is needed to confirm that the statement is genuinely the product of the guilty mind of the actualperpetrator because no one else would know these crucial details.

Contamination most often occurs after the interrogator has elicited the initial admission about the suspect’sinvolvement in the crime. The interrogator then attempts to elicit more detail as indicated above. Theinvestigator will often pressure the suspect to accept the investigator’s understanding of the events andthereby shape the narrative that fits the investigator’s theory of the case. This often leads to the finalnarrative being contaminated with factual assertions that are not truly the suspect’s but have been planted,wittingly or perhaps unwittingly, by the interrogator. It must be emphasized that this danger is nearly alwayspresent because in an adversarial system of justice like the American, the police most frequently presumethey are interrogating suspects who are guilty of the crime and so assume the suspect knows the facts. Butwhen they are mistakenly interrogating an innocent suspect, the innocent person uses facts disclosed to himby the interrogator to construct a narrative that sounds plausible. Police will then confirm their ownpresumption of guilt by emphasizing the “guilty knowledge” of the suspect often unaware that theythemselves have planted the damning facts in the suspect’s head. Of course, when the interrogation isrecorded, overt efforts to plant information in the suspect will be obvious and the interrogator will not beable to deny having done so. However, even when the interrogation is recorded, facts may be planted subtlyso that lay people such as jurors will not notice that they came from the interrogator and not the suspect.

-40-

Contamination as described above has been identified by researchers in the overwhelming majorityof cases where confessions have subsequently been conclusivelyestablished to be false. In a study of the firsttwo-hundred and fifty (250) post-conviction DNA exonerations of innocent prisoners in the Americancriminal justice system, Professor Brandon Garrett of the University of Virginia Law School showed thatsuch contamination was present in 95% of the false confession cases in this data set (38 of 40 cases). In thesecases, interrogators themselves were the source of facts that were fed to the suspect- facts that only the trueperpetrator was supposed to have known.

In Mr. Sanders’s case, we have a glaring example of the potential for contamination in that the mostdamning part of his alleged confession was not recorded. The explanation given by Detective Potter is thatthe failure to activate the recording equipment upon his re-entry into the room was inadvertent. It is notnecessary to evaluate the credibility of that claim in order to observe the result of potential contaminationin the final statement. Ultimately, the statement that Mr. Sanders signed was markedly different in its mostdamning details from the one that was recorded and signs of coercion, as noted above, were already present.Detective Potter conceded in his report, that upon re-entering, he “confronted” Mr. Sanders with his beliefthat the initial statement was not credible. One is left to speculate what form this confrontation took, butclassic examples of contamination abound in the detective’s own description of how the final statement waselicited. The events that Detective Potter urged Mr. Sanders to concede were entirely provided by DetectivePotter. It is Potter who stated that Mr. Sanders pointed the gun at Ms. Rosenberg and fired from a distancewith his own hand. The closest Mr. Sanders came to conceding this fact, even according to the detective,was to merely nod his assent. All of the damning facts in this statement were planted in the story by thedetective. Given the prior use of coercive techniques coupled with the fact that the final statement isdramatically more inculpatory than his initial statement, it is reasonable to conclude that the coercivestressors discussed above were increased during this final stage of unrecorded interrogation.

Subjective Factors Regarding the Individual Suspect Confessor

All of the above observations must be further assessed in the light of the psycho-social make-up ofthe individual subject of the police interrogation. The coercive factors reviewed above are affected in theirintensity by the unique psychological profile of the individual. Although I have not conducted apsycho-social evaluation of Ralph Sanders, I have had the opportunity to review the diagnostic basis for hisdisability retirement from the US Army and I have received anecdotal information about his habits andbehaviors at the time period leading to his arrest. These include conversations with you as well as a reviewof the interview with Mr. Sanders’s daughter, Ida Rosenberg by Detective Potter. Ralph Sanders wasdischarged from the Army based upon a psychiatric diagnosis which rendered him completely disabled. Hewas diagnosed with anxiety disorder, obsessive/compulsive disorder and panic disorder/agoraphobia.General anxiety disorder is a condition that causes the sufferer to experience excessive and unrealistic worryand tension, even in the absence of an objective cause. Panic disorder is a closely related diagnosis andresults in periodic feelings of terror that can strike without warning and can be marked by physical symptomslike excessive sweating, chest pains and heart palpitations. Agoraphobia is a fear of spaces where thesufferer may feel trapped, fearful or embarrassed and from which he sees no escape. Obsessive CompulsiveDisorder disorder (OCD) is characterized by unreasonable thoughts and fears (obsessions) that lead one todo repetitive behaviors (compulsions). In the absence of a full psycho-social evaluation, I cannot form anopinion as to the extent to which subjective psycho social factors influenced the integrity of the policeinterrogation, but I will outline their inputs in general terms. Of particular note in this case is that althoughthe diagnoses that led to Mr. Sanders’s retirement are quite old there is some indication that he continued

-41-

to suffer from them at the time of the interrogation. One significant fact is that upon his arrest he was foundto have four 100mg. tablets of Zoloft on his person. Zoloft in 100mg form is a therapeutic strengthmedication commonly prescribed for anxiety and panic disorder and OCD. Also, he was found in possessionof a pair of needlenose pliers, an item that he apparently carried routinely, though it seems to have servedno specific purpose. This can be a symptom of OCD.

An individual who suffers from general anxiety disorder, panic attacks, agoraphobia and OCD is farmore likely than the average person to become malleable and subject to suggestion in an interrogationsetting. The suspect who suffers from these deficits is frequently more easily manipulated by hisinterrogators and will be less prone to confrontation with authority figures in a desire to remove himself froma setting which is intensely uncomfortable. Additionally, a substance abuser such as Mr. Sanders may havebeen suffering from withdrawal symptoms at the time of the interrogation which would exacerbate theeffects of the general stressors described above.

In conclusion, based on my analysis above, it is my professional opinion that:

Hundreds of innocent suspects have confessed under police interrogation to crimes that it was laterobjectively proven they did not commit.

Investigators Potter and Scarborough approached Mr. Sanders’s interrogation with a presumptionthat he was guilty and the consequent interrogation was marked by tunnel vision, confirmation bias andinvestigative bias. Investigators Potter and Scarborough used several interrogation techniques on RalphSanders that could have induced Ralph Sanders to falsely confess to a crime he did not commit. Theseinterrogation techniques included false evidence ploys, minimization, and maximization and contamination.Ralph Sanders gave multiple inconsistent and contradictory accounts of his involvement in the homicide ofEva Rosenberg. These accounts do not fit with one another, or the known facts of the crime and thus serveas one indicator of the potential unreliability of Sanders’s statements.

The opinions I express in this report are based on my own knowledge, research, and publications;research and publications in the field; and the case-specific information and evidence that has been providedto me. Should any additional information or testimony come to my attention, I reserve the right to modifyany opinions expressed herein accordingly.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully yours,

Corbin Salinger, PhD, JD

-42-

TRANSCRIPT OF 12/7/15 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWBETWEEN ADA QUINLAN AND DR. CORBIN SALINGER

Mr. Quinlan: Good morning, Dr. Salinger, this is ADA James Quinlan, the prosecutor on the Sanders case?

Dr. Salinger: Oh, yes, good morning Mr. Quinlan.

Mr. Quinlan: Mr. Sanders’s lawyer suggested this would be a good time for me to call. Do you have a fewminutes?

Dr. Salinger: Yes, fine, go right ahead.

Mr. Quinlan: I think you may already have been told that I wanted this opportunity to talk to you so wecould clarify a few things in your report and that I might be able to ask you a few morequestions about your opinion on the case.

Dr. Salinger: Yes, certainly. I understand.

Mr. Quinlan: Also, I think Mr. Sanders’s attorney mentioned that I’d like to record the conversation. It’smuch easier than trying to scribble notes as we speak. Would that be alright?

Dr. Salinger: That’s fine. I have no objection to being recorded.

Mr. Quinlan: OK, thanks. First, in your report, you mentioned the defendant’s possession ofpharmaceuticals and referenced it in reaching your conclusion. I just want to clarify, you arenot a physician or physician’s assistant, right? You do not prescribe medications as part ofyour clinical practice do you?

Dr. Salinger: No. Of course, I understand chemical interactions and drug effects from a clinicalperspective, but no, I do not prescribe medications.

Mr. Quinlan: Do you spend much time on a clinical practice now? I mean, do you actually see clients?

Dr. Salinger: I don’t have much time for it anymore. I practiced steadily until about ten years ago but mostof my work is in research and teaching now.

Mr. Quinlan: As far as Mr. Sanders is concerned, did you examine him, you know, perform apsychological assessment of him?

Dr. Salinger: No. I have not met Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Quinlan: So as you indicated in your report, your sources were exclusively the documents youreviewed?

Dr. Salinger: Right

-43-

Mr. Quinlan: So, the same is true of the detectives in the case? You reviewed the police reports but did notspeak to Detective Potter or Detective Scarborough personally?

Dr. Salinger: No, I restricted my assessment only to the objectively observable inputs. My opinion is basedon what you or anyone else can read.

Mr. Quinlan: Well, as to Mr. Sanders’s diagnosis of General Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive CompulsiveDisorder and Panic Disorder/Agoraphobia, you relied on the information we had from theDOD, the 1997 determination, right?

Dr. Salinger: Yes, and I know that is an old report but he’s still disabled based upon that diagnosis.

Mr. Quinlan: Yes, but I have no evidence that he was ever treated for those conditions after that date. Doyou?

Dr. Salinger: No I went by the military discharge diagnosis.

Mr. Quinlan: Well, if you were working in your clinical practice, you would not make a recommendationfor a course of treatment for a client based on a 19 year old diagnosis alone, would you? Thatwould be rather unprofessional, wouldn’t it?

Dr. Salinger: Yes, certainly. No responsible clinician would do that, but I’m not treating Mr. Sanders. Mywork here is to review the circumstances surrounding his encounter with the police.

Mr. Quinlan: In reading the transcript of the police interrogation, did you see that Mr. Sandersacknowledged that he was a heroin abuser?

Dr. Salinger: Abuser would be a clinical diagnosis. I didn’t make that diagnosis. I did see that he selfreported using heroin, though he reported the dosage as relatively mild.

Mr. Quinlan: Did you ever see drug abusers in your clinical practice?

Dr. Salinger: Frequently, yes.

Mr. Quinlan: Don’t they often understate the amount of drugs they are actually taking in order to mask theintensity of their abuse?

Dr. Salinger: If they perceive it to be in their immediate interest, they might.

Mr. Quinlan: Don’t heroin abusers also commonly use Xanax as a way to soften the lows in coming downoff a heroin high?

Dr. Salinger: It wouldn’t be prescribed by a physician for that purpose, but on the street, yes, someonemight use it in that context, but whether Mr. Sanders did that would be pure speculation.

-44-

Mr. Quinlan: OK. Doctor, I think I have just a couple of questions about the research you relied upon toreach your conclusion. First, broadly speaking, you made clear that if the statement resultingfrom an interrogation is inconsistent with the physical evidence in the case, that is a goodindicator that the statement is false, at least in that one respect. Do I have that right?

Dr. Salinger: That is what the research makes clear. Often the statement reflects what its proponent wantsthe case to appear to be, not what the case actually is. There is no better evidence of thatdistinction than when the statement does not match the physical evidence in the case.

Mr. Quinlan: Finally then, doctor, early in your report you refer to research into “provably falseconfessions”. Are all these, so called “provably false confessions” from cases that we wouldcall, “wrong man” cases; that is, cases where the suspect admitted to participation in anincident that in actuality he was not even present for. Am I right about that?

Dr. Salinger: Yes, I think I know where you are going...

Mr. Quinlan: Well, let me finish my point first and ask you to address it as a whole. In Mr. Sanders’s case,we aren’t dealing with that situation at all. I mean there is no question that Mrs. Rosenbergwas killed in Mr. Sanders’s presence and the only question is whether he caused her death,not whether he was present or whether some unknown third person was the perpetrator. Somy question is how can you use conclusions drawn from the dissimilar, “provably falseconfession” cases and apply them to the Sanders case where the nature of the confession iscategorically different?

Dr. Salinger: First, I can’t say off the top of my head whether any of the provably false cases in that studyconcerned cases factually similar to Mr. Sanders’s case, or if they are all classic, “wrongman” cases, as you say. But the quality of the interrogations can be analyzed the same way.You focus on the police interrogation techniques. If they create false results in one categoryof cases, that is relevant to the conclusions one would draw in other kinds of cases as well.

Mr. Quinlan: OK, now just to be clear about this, I understand that you are not prepared to render anopinion about whether this particular statement, or set of statements made by Ralph Sandersis true or not true. Your proposed testimony will be limited to whether there were coercivefactors present.

Dr. Salinger: Well, certainly I cannot offer an opinion about whether the statement is true or not. Howcould I know that? So yes, you are right, but I would not say my testimony will be limitedto whether there were coercive factors present. I certainly intend to explain the depth andsignificance of the coercive nature of the environment.

Mr. Quinlan: Yes, I expect the court will likely permit you to explain the basis for your conclusions. I’mjust confirming that you are not suggesting that you are able to state whether this statement,or any statement that you might review in your professional capacity is in fact true or not.

Dr. Salinger: No, no of course not. One would have to be a mystic to be able to do that, right? (Laughter).So, yes, you have summarized my proposed testimony accurately.

-45-

Mr. Quinlan: Well, thank you for providing me with this additional information, Dr. Salinger. I appreciateyour taking this time with me.

Dr. Salinger: You’re quite welcome, take care now.

Mr. Quinlan: Good bye.

-46-

GRAND JURY TESTIMONYRALPH SANDERS

September 4, 2015Queens County, New York

The following is a transcript of the entire testimony of Ralph Sanders before the Queens County Grand Juryinvestigating the death of Eva Rosenberg. Sanders executed a valid waiver of immunityprior to commencinghis testimony and he was represented by counsel at the time. The following begins after the subject of thegrand jury investigation, Ralph Sanders was sworn in by the foreperson. The questions are by the prosecutorJames C. Quinlan:

Q: Mr. Sanders I will now give you an opportunity to make an uninterrupted statement to the grand juryconcerning the events that occurred on the subway platform of the E train in Jamaica, County ofQueens on August 21, 2015. Iwill only interrupt you if you stray from the relevant facts of this grandjury investigation. You may include a brief account of events leading up to the incident underinvestigation but again, if you stray from the relevant facts I will interrupt and ask you to focus onthe matter at hand. Otherwise, as I said, I will not interrupt you. After you have completed yourstatement, myself and the members of the grand jury may have questions for you that you will haveto answer. Do you understand what I have just told you?

A: Yes

Q: Then you may begin your statement.

A: Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is Ralph Sanders. I am 47 years old and I ama disabled veteran. I joined the Army during the first Gulf War because I wanted to serve my countryand I hoped that I would be sent to Kuwait to fight Saddam Hussein, but the war ended before I evengot out of basic. I did graduate from basic and I got promoted to Specialist and I served in the Gulfregion for a while in Kuwait and Bahrain. But I got sent home when I became ill. I started to sufferfrom anxiety and stress over there and it got worse when I got home. I have OCD which is ObsessiveCompulsive Disorder and I get panic attacks. I ended up getting a full medical disability retirementbecause my condition got bad and I was totally and permanently disabled. One of the things thatOCD causes...

Q: I’m going to need to stop you there, Mr. Sanders. You cannot give testimony about typical symptomsof medical conditions. Please stick to the facts at hand. Do you have something to tell the grand juryabout the date in question?

A: I’m getting to that. All this started because of things turning bad between my wife and me. We havebeen together for over twenty years, since right after I got my disability retirement. Everything wasfine at first but she always depended on me for money. That’s OK because I’m the man of the houseand if your wife can’t depend on you for money then what good are you. My daughter too. She’s 20years old now and I took care of them both their whole damn lives. You see Eva was a heroin addict.I’m not saying that in a judging kind of way or nothing, its just a fact and it was a problem. See sheeven got me hooked on heroin too because I started to take some of her stuff to deal with mysymptoms that I guess I’m not supposed to talk about. Anyway, I got symptoms, I’ll leave it at that.

-47-

A couple of months before this thing in the subway, Eva changed her drug of choice so tospeak, and it really flipped her out. She started on this methadone program and she got allweird and independent and all and started saying how she was going to start her own lifeaway from me. We fought about that a lot. A few days before she got killed, we had a badargument about all of this on the street by our home. She was out at all hours without evenletting me know where she is and I’m not like that, you see. I’m a man who cares about hisfamily so I got pretty angry with her. She went to the police about it and blew it out ofproportion saying I threatened her with pliers, which wasn’t true. I might have got a littlephysical with her a couple of times in the past, but I didn’t use no pliers on her.

Anyway I got arrested for it and she got a restraining order from the judge and went andchanged the locks on the door, like permanently locking me out of my own house eventhough the restraining order was just a temporary one.

So on the day all this happened I went to meet her at her methadone clinic in Jamaica causethat’s the only way I could find out about this lock changing thing and maybe even get myown stuff out of my house so I could stay at a friend’s temporarily and have a change ofclothes and all. So I saw her on the platform going to the escalator and I went up to her. I justneeded the keys temporarily. That’s all I wanted but she always blows me off. So when shesaw me she tried to walk away, so I just grabbed her shirt a little to, you know, keep herthere. I was like, give me the keys so she reaches into her purse, me thinking wow, that waseasy, and she pulls out a gun and points it at me. It was my own freaking gun that she had.It’s a .25 automatic that we always kept in the house in case of burglars and she’s carryingit with her. I immediately grabbed it and we struggled over it. I turned it away from me andtoward her to try to wrestle it out of her hand. I managed to push the barrel away from meand she was struggling to regain control of it and was pulling it toward herself with bothhands and the barrel was now against her chest which must have caused her hand to press onthe trigger because the gun went off. Then Eva starts to slump to the floor and I find myselfstanding at the top of the escalator with the gun in my hand. At that moment I panicked causeI saw all of a sudden what it would look like. Me holding a gun with her bleeding and therestraining order and all. So I just ran down the escalator and I threw the gun into the tracksand got on the train that was in the station at the time.

I found out she died from the news later that day and I was totally sick to my stomach andI didn’t know what to do. Finally I decided I had to turn myself in so I was going to go seeCardinal Dolan and maybe he would go to the police with me. But I got arrested at the busterminal before I had a chance to do that or to give my daughter all my money which I wasgoing to do.

Anyway, the police arrested me and they took me back to Queens and I told Detective Potterabout everything, just like I told all of you. At first he was fine with it. We even had Chinesefood together and he agreed it was all an accident, but something happened there at theprecinct and it all turned bad. Potter was very nice at first but then later he starts telling meI have to change my story because it’s not good enough for his bosses. I said, what are youtalking about, I can’t change the truth. The truth is the truth. He said, no it isn’t and startedtelling me what I should say. I started to get real anxious and I had a panic attack, so they left

-48-

me in the room for like hours. He and his partner, who was a real prick, excuse my language,came back in and were telling me what was believable and what wasn’t. They were tellingme I wasn’t leaving that room until they got the truth and they wouldn’t believe that I alreadygave them the truth. They said that no judge was ever going to believe that and that I shouldhelp myself out and tell a better story which was that I brought the gun with me and that Ishot her but it was an accident because she tried to grab the gun. Eventually, I just brokedown. I was so scared and tired and I was de-compensating and I just needed to get out ofthere so I said, fine I’ll say whatever you want. Except I wouldn’t say it. Potter said it and Ijust swore to it cause it wasn’t true.

The last thing I want to say is that this was a terrible accident. I’m not saying I had nothingto do with it and me and Eva had our problems. I should have stayed away from heraltogether and no one is more sorry than I am that Eva died, but I’m no murderer. I didn’tshoot my wife. It was an accident when she pointed the gun at me.

Q: Does that complete your statement, Mr. Sanders?

A: Yes

Q: Well, I have some questions of my own. First, you said that when you and Eva had an argument inthe street a few days before her death, that you didn’t use a pair of pliers against her, is that right?

A: Right. She must have made that up.

Q: But you did say you have gotten “physical” with her in the past, right?

A: A couple of times, maybe.

Q: And when you say, you got physical, you mean that you used violence against her, right?

A: Not necessarily

Q: Lets take an incident in June for example. Don’t you recall being in your apartment with just Evaand your daughter Ida present and you tried to hit Eva with a cane?

A: She didn’t actually get hit though

Q: Wouldn’t you call swinging a cane at your wife an act of violence?

A: You could call it that, but I didn’t hit her with it.

Q: When Eva got the order of protection, that angered you didn’t it?

A: She lied about what I did.

Q: Again, that angered you didn’t it?

-49-

A: Of course it did.

Q: On the day that Eva died, you had been locked out of your own home for three days already, right?

A: Yes.

Q: All because of what you call a lie from Eva?

A: It was a lie and yes, I was on the street because of it.

Q: Which angered you, right?

A: Yes

Q: Was your purpose for going to the Jamaica train station that morning to confront Eva?

A: Yeah, I said that.

Q: And she had been ignoring you?

A: Totally

Q: So you knew you were going to have to use force to get the keys you wanted, right?

A: I don’t know. I just needed her to listen to me.

Q: The gun that killed your wife was your gun?

A: Yes

Q: You kept it in your house?

A: Yes

Q: Illegally, that is you had no license for it?

A: Right.

Q: Isn’t it true that you brought the gun to the train station that day, Mr. Sanders?

A: How could I have? I was locked out. I couldn’t have gotten the gun even if I wanted to.

Q: Don’t you have a way of gaining access to your house through the window by the fire escape?There’s a window there that you know how to jimmy open with a hanger, right?

A: Well, yeah, but I didn’t do that.

-50-

Q: You’re telling this grand jury that your wife had the gun and that she was shot accidentally when youtried to wrestle the gun away from her?

A: That’s what happened.

Q: Except that is not in the statement that you made to Detective Potter and signed with your own handon August 27th is it?

A: They coerced me into saying that.

Q: Look at the statement, Mr. Sanders. (Showing the statement to the witness) You said that you shother and you signed it, didn’t you?

A: Yes

Q: Did Detective Potter ever strike you?

A: No

Q: Did he ever threaten to strike you in order to coerce you into saying something you did not want tosay?

A: Not like that, no.

Q: Did any member of the police department abuse you or mistreat you in any way?

A: Yes, they left me in that room for hours on end.

Q: And while you were in that room, did anyone mistreat you, deny you food or water or the ability touse the bathroom?

A: No, nothing like that.

Q: So basically, you sat there, by yourself for a long period of time?

A: While I was in the room, yes. Sometimes they would come in and just ignore me until they startedpressuring me to make that statement.

Q: The one you said that you signed with your own hand, right?

A: Yes.

Mr. Quinlan: Thank you, Mr. Foreman. I have no further questions for the witness, he is excused.

-51-

EXHIBIT #1

-52-

.25 Caliber Raven Arms PistolIs Exhibit #2

.25 Caliber Raven Arms Shell CasingIs Exhibit #3

The 911 RecordingIs Exhibit #4

These exhibits will be provided at trial

-53-

EXHIBIT #5

-54-

EXHIBIT #6

-55-

EXHIBIT #7

-56-

EXHIBIT #8

-57-

EXHIBIT #9

-58-

STIPULATION OF DETECTIVE FOTI

Detective Dominic Foti, a detective with the Firearms Analysis Section (FAS) of the New York CityPolice Department has been qualified as an expert in the fields of Firearms Operability, MicroscopicAnalysis of Ballistics Evidence, and Gunpowder Residue Analysis. If called to testify as a witness, he wouldtestify as follows:

On August 22, 2015, I received a Raven Arms .25 caliber semi automatic pistol marked People’s2 in evidence from Detective Bernard Potter of the New York City Police Department. Det. Potter also gaveme a .25 caliber spent shell casing, which is marked as People’s 3 in evidence.

I conducted an operability test on People’s 2 in evidence. I loaded People’s 2 with .25 caliberammunition from FAS supply. I then discharged People’s 2 using that ammunition. It is my expert opinionwithin a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the .25 caliber semi-automatic Raven Arms pistol isoperable.

Using a comparison microscope, I then compared the markings on the shell casing, from the testfiring of People’s 2 to the marks on People’s 3, the .25 caliber shell casing found by Det. Potter at the scene.Based upon a microscopic analysis of the patterns on these two shell casings, it is also my opinion that the.25 caliber shell casing, People’s 3, was fired from the .25 caliber Raven Arms semi-automatic pistol,People’s 2.

Using the same comparison microscope, I compared the lead bullet from the test firing of People’s2 in evidence, the gun recovered by Detective Potter, to the bullet recovered by the OCME during theautopsy on Eva Rosenberg. Both bullets were fired from People’s 2 in evidence.

Further, I conducted a test of the same pistol to determine soot powder residue ranges. I fired theweapon at ranges of increasing distances of two inches per firing at blank cloth targets. I continued thefirings until the weapon no longer left any soot residue, which occurred at a distance of 18". I repeated eachof the firings three times to ensure consistency in the resulting pattern. I then compared the cloth targetsto the photograph submitted by the ME of the blouse worn by Eva Rosenberg at the time she was shot.

It is my opinion that the weapon was fired from a minimum of 6" to a maximum of 12" from theblouse with the most consistent soot pattern exhibited by the tests conducted at a range of 8".

Dated: October 26, 2016Det. Dominic FotiFirearms Analysis SectionNew York City Police Department

EXHIBIT #10-59-

EXHIBIT #11

-60-

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Pre-Summation Instructions

Members of the jury, you will now hear the summations of the lawyers. Following the summations, Iwill instruct you on the law, and then you will begin your deliberations.

Under our law, defense counsel must sum up first, and the prosecutor must follow. The lawyers may notspeak to you after that.

Summations provide each lawyer an opportunity to review the evidence and submit for yourconsideration the facts, inferences, and conclusions that they contend may properly be drawn from the evidence.

If you find that a lawyer has accurately summarized and analyzed the evidence, and if you find that theinferences and conclusions the lawyer asks you to draw from that evidence are reasonable, logical and consistentwith the evidence, then you may adopt those inferences and conclusions.

Members of the jury, bear in mind the following points:

First, you are the finders of fact and it is for you and you alone to determine the facts from the evidencethat you find to be truthful and accurate. Thus, you should remember that whatever the lawyers say, andhowever they say it, is simply argument submitted for your consideration.

Second, remember the lawyers are not witnesses in this case. So, if a lawyer asserts as fact somethingthat is not based on the evidence, you must disregard it. Remember, nothing the lawyers say at any time isevidence. So, nothing the lawyers say in their summations is evidence. You have heard the evidence and mustdecide this case on the evidence as you find it and the law as I explain it.

Third, during the summations, one lawyer's recollection of the evidence may in good faith differ fromthe recollection of the other lawyer(s) or from your own recollection, and the lawyers will undoubtedly differwith each other on the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. It is your own recollection, understandingand evaluation of the evidence, however, that controls, regardless of what the lawyers have said or will say aboutthe evidence. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts in this case. If during your deliberations you needto have your recollection of the testimony refreshed, you may have all or any portion of the testimony read backto you.

Fourth, remember, under our law, I am responsible for explaining the law, not the lawyers.

Now, prior to the summations, the lawyers were permitted to read the instructions on the law that I willdeliver to you after their summations; and the lawyers are permitted to refer briefly to portions of thoseinstructions in their summations if they wish. However, even though a lawyer may refer to portions of thoseinstructions, you must listen carefully to all the instructions that I will give you after the summations.

If you think there is any difference between what the lawyers may have said, and what I say the law is,your sworn duty as jurors is to follow my instructions on the law, [as you have promised me that you would].

Fifth, if during the summations, I sustain an objection to a comment of a lawyer, that comment will bestricken from the record, and you must disregard it as if it were never said. If I overrule an objection, thecomment will stand. Whether I sustain or overrule an objection, or on my own indicate that a comment mustbe disregarded, my ruling indicates only that the comment does, or does not, violate one of the rules of law set

-61-

down for lawyers to follow during a summation. It is not an attempt to indicate that I have an opinion on whatis said, or of the facts of the case, or of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Remember, under our law,you and you alone judge what facts, if any, are proven, and whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty; not I,and not the lawyers.

We turn now to the summations.

POST - SUMMATION INSTRUCTIONS

Introduction

Members of the jury, I will now instruct you on the law. I will first review the general principles of lawthat apply to this case and all criminal cases. You have heard me explain some of those principles at thebeginning of the trial. I'm sure you appreciate the benefits of repeating those instructions at this stage of theproceedings.

Next, I will define the crime charged in this case, explain the law that applies to those definitions, andspell out the elements of the charged crime.

Finally, I will outline the process of jury deliberations.

Role of Court and Jury

During these instructions, I will not summarize the evidence. If necessary, I may refer to portions of theevidence to explain the law that relates to it. My reference to evidence, or my failure to refer to evidence,expresses no opinion about the truthfulness, accuracy, or importance of any particular evidence. In fact, nothingI have said in the course of this trial meant to suggest that I have an opinion about this case. If you have formedan impression that I do have an opinion, you must put it out of your mind and disregard it.

It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours. You and you alone are the judges ofthe facts, and you and you alone are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

Sentence

In your deliberations, you may not consider or speculate about matters relating to sentence orpunishment. If there is a verdict of guilty, it will be my responsibility to impose an appropriate sentence.

Evidence

When you judge the facts you are to consider only the evidence.

The evidence in the case includes:the testimony of the witnesses,the exhibits that were received in evidence, andthe stipulation(s) by the parties. A stipulation is information the parties agree to present to thejury as evidence, without calling a witness to testify.

-62-

Testimony which was stricken from the record or to which an objection was sustained must bedisregarded by you.

Exhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon your request, for your inspection andconsideration.

Exhibits that were just seen during the trial, or marked for identification but not received in evidence,are not evidence, and are thus not available for your inspection and consideration.

But, testimony based on exhibits that were not received in evidence may be considered by you. It is justthat the exhibit itself is not available for your inspection and consideration.

Evidentiary Inferences

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may bedrawn from such fact.

To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proofof some other fact or facts.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flowsnaturally, reasonably and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in decidingwhether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense,and experience.

Presumption of Innocence

We now turn to the fundamental principles of our law that apply in all criminal trials–the presumptionof innocence, the burden of proof, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Throughout these proceedings, the defendant is presumed to be innocent. As a result, you must find thedefendant not guilty, unless, on the evidence presented at this trial, you conclude that the People have proventhe defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In determining whether the People have satisfied their burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyonda reasonable doubt, you may consider all the evidence presented, whether by the People or by the defendant.In doing so, however, remember that, even though the defendant introduced evidence, the burden of proofremains on the People.

Burden of Proof

The defendant is not required to prove that he/she is not guilty. In fact, the defendant is not required toprove or disprove anything. To the contrary, the People have the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyonda reasonable doubt. That means, before you can find the defendant guilty of a crime, the People must provebeyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime including that the defendant is the person who committedthat crime. The burden of proof never shifts from the People to the defendant. If the People fail to satisfy theirburden of proof, you must find the defendant not guilty. If the People satisfy their burden of proof, you mustfind the defendant guilty.

-63-

Reasonable Doubt

What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," to tell you how convincing the evidence ofguilt must be to permit a verdict of guilty. The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are veryfew things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. Therefore, the law does not require the Peopleto prove a defendant guilty beyond all possible doubt. On the other hand, it is not sufficient to prove that thedefendant is probably guilty. In a criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that. It must be beyonda reasonable doubt.

A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon thenature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonableperson, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that waspresented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.

Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant'sguilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identityas the person who committed the crime.

In determining whether or not the People have proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,you should be guided solely by a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. After carefully evaluating theevidence, each of you must decide whether or not that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt ofthe defendant's guilt.

Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculations. Nor may it be influenced inany way by bias, prejudice, sympathy, or by a desire to bring an end to your deliberations or to avoid anunpleasant duty.

If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a charged crime, youmust find the defendant not guilty of that crime. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that thedefendant is guilty of a charged crime, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.

Credibility of Witnesses

As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of eachwitness. You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or wasmistaken. You must also decide what importance to give to the testimony you accept as truthful and accurate.It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify.

Accept in Whole or in Part (Falsus in Uno)

If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregardthat witness's entire testimony. Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept somuch of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.

-64-

Credibility factors

There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracyof another person's statementsor testimony. You bring to this process all of your varied experiences. In life, you frequently decide thetruthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people. The same factors used to make thosedecisions, should be used in this case when evaluating the testimony.

In General

Some of the factors that you may wish to consider in evaluating the testimony of a witness are as follows:

Did the witness have an opportunity to see or hear the events about which he or she testified?

Did the witness have the ability to recall those events accurately?

Was the testimony of the witness plausible and likely to be true, or was it implausible and not likely tobe true?

Was the testimony of the witness consistent or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence in the case?

Did the manner in which the witness testified reflect upon the truthfulness of that witness's testimony?

To what extent, if any, did the witness's background, training, education, or experience affect thebelievability of that witness's testimony?

Did the witness have a bias, hostility or some other attitude that affected the truthfulness of the witness'stestimony?

Motive

You may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie.

If a witness had a motive to lie, you may consider whether and to what extent, if any, that motive affectedthe truthfulness of that witness's testimony.

If a witness did not have a motive to lie, you may consider that as well in evaluating the witness'struthfulness.

Benefit

You may consider whether a witness hopes for or expects to receive a benefit for testifying. If so, youmay consider whether and to what extent it affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony.

Interest/Lack of Interest

You may consider whether a witness has any interest in the outcome of the case, or instead, whether thewitness has no such interest.

You are not required to reject the testimony of an interested witness, or to accept the testimony of awitness who has no interest in the outcome of the case.

-65-

You may, however, consider whether an interest in the outcome, or the lack of such interest, affectedthe truthfulness of the witness's testimony.

Previous Criminal Conduct

You may consider whether a witness has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct,and if so, whether and to what extent it affects the truthfulness of that witness's testimony.

You are not required to reject the testimony of a witness who has been convicted of a crime or hasengaged in criminal conduct, or to accept the testimony of a witness who has not.

You may, however, consider whether a witness's criminal conviction or conduct has affected thetruthfulness of the witness's testimony.

Inconsistent Statements

You may consider whether a witness made statements at this trial that are inconsistent with each other.

You may also consider whether a witness made previous statements that are inconsistent with his or hertestimony at trial.

You may consider whether a witness testified to a fact here at trial that the witness omitted to state, ata prior time, when it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the fact. Indetermining whether it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the omitted fact,you may consider whether the witness' attention was called to the matter and whether the witness wasspecifically asked about it.

If a witness has made such inconsistent statements [or omissions], you mayconsider whether and to whatextent they affect the truthfulness or accuracy of that witness's testimony here at this trial.

The contents of a prior inconsistent statement are not proof of what happened. You may use evidenceof a prior inconsistent statement only to evaluate the truthfulness or accuracy of the witness's testimony here attrial.

Consistency

You may consider whether a witness's testimony is consistent with the testimony of other witnesses orwith other evidence in the case.

If there were inconsistencies by or among witnesses, you may consider whether they were significantinconsistencies related to important facts, or instead were the kind of minor inconsistencies that one mightexpect from multiple witnesses to the same event.

Witness Pre-trial Preparation

To the extent you have heard testimony about the prosecutor, the defense attorney or detectives, policeofficers or investigators speaking to a witness about the case before the witness testified at this trial, I provideyou with the following instruction. The law permits a prosecutor, a defense attorney or a detective or policeofficer or an investigator to speak to a witness about the case before the witness testifies, and to review with the

-66-

witness the questions that will or may be asked at trial, including the questions that may be asked on cross-examination.

You may have also heard testimony that a witness read or reviewed certain materials pertaining to thiscase before the witness testified at trial. The law permits a witness to do so.

Speaking to a witness about his or her testimony and permitting the witness to review materialspertaining to the case before the witness testifies is a normal part of preparing for trial, and is not improper.

Of course, in the process of trial preparation, a prosecutor or defense attorney or a detective or a policeofficer or an investigator may not suggest that the witness depart from the truth.

IDENTIFICATION

As you know, an issue in the case is whether the defendant has been correctly identified as the personwho committed the charged crime.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that a charged crime wascommitted, but that the defendant is the person who committed that crime.

Thus, even if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a charged crime was committed bysomeone, you cannot convict the defendant of that crime unless you are also convinced beyond a reasonabledoubt that he/she is the person who committed that crime.

In examining the testimony of any witness who identified the defendant as that person, you shoulddetermine whether that testimony is both truthful and accurate.

With respect to whether the identification is truthful, that is, not deliberately false, you must evaluatethe believability of the witness who made an identification. In doing so, you may consider the various factorsfor evaluating the believability of a witness's testimony that I listed for you a few moments ago.

With respect to whether the identification is accurate, that is, not an honest mistake, you must evaluatethe witness's intelligence, and capacity for observation, reasoning and memory, and determine whether you aresatisfied that the witness is a reliable witness who had the ability to observe and remember the person inquestion.

STATEMENTS (Admissions, Confessions)Introduction

I will now discuss the law as it relates to testimony concerning statements of the defendant made to apolice officer.

Our law does not require that a statement by a defendant be in any particular form. It may be oral, orwritten, or electronically recorded.

A statement in written form need not have been written or signed by the defendant provided that thedefendant adopted the statement. A defendant adopts a statement when he/she knowingly acknowledges thecontents of the statement as his/her own. In deciding whether the statement was adopted, the presence orabsence of the defendant’s signature may be considered.

-67-

There is no requirement that a statement be made under oath.

Custodial Statements

There is testimony that, while the defendant was in custody, he/she was questioned by the police andmade certain oral statements.

Under our law, before you may consider any such statement as evidence in the case, you must first beconvinced that the statement attributed to the defendant was in fact made or adopted by him. In determiningwhether the defendant made or adopted the statement, you may apply the tests of believability and accuracy thatwe have already discussed.

Also, under our law, even if you find that the defendant made a statement, you still may not consider itas evidence in the case unless the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made thestatement voluntarily.

How do you determine whether the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendantmade a statement voluntarily?

Miranda Rights

Initially, under our law, before a person in custody may be questioned by the police, that person first,must be advised of his rights; second, must understand those rights; and third, must voluntarily waive thoserights and agree to speak to the police. If any one of those three conditions is not met, a statement made inresponse to questioning is not voluntary and, therefore, you must not consider it.

There is no particular point in time that the police are required to advise a defendant in custody of hisrights, so long as they do so before questioning begins. A defendant in custody need be advised only once ofthe rights, regardless of how many times, or to whom, the defendant speaks after having been so advised;(provided the defendant is in continuous custody from the time he was advised of his rights to the time he wasquestioned and there was no reason to believe that the defendant had forgotten or no longer understood hisrights.

While there are no particular words that the police are required to use in advising a defendant, in sumand substance, the defendant must be advised:

1. That he has the right to remain silent;

2. That anything he says may be used against him in a court of law;

3. That he has the right to consult with a lawyer before answering any questions; and the right tothe presence of a lawyer during any questioning; and

4. That if he cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for him prior to any questioning if he sodesires.

Before you may consider as evidence a statement made by the defendant in response to questioning, you mustfind beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was advised of his rights, understood those rights, andvoluntarily waived those rights and agreed to speak to the police. If you do not make those findings, then youmust disregard the statement and not consider it.

-68-

A person may validly waive his rights, regardless of whether or not he had a full understanding of thecriminal law or procedures or, in particular, how what he says on waiving his rights may be used later in thecriminal process.

What must be shown for a valid waiver is that the individual grasped the plain meaning of the warningsthat he did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to his disadvantage; and thatan attorney's assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued.

Traditional Involuntariness

Under our law, a statement is not voluntary if it is obtained from the defendant by the use or threateneduse of physical force upon the defendant or another person.

In addition, a statement is not voluntary if it is obtained by means of any other improper conduct orundue pressure which impairs the defendant’s physical or mental condition to the extent of undermining his/herability to make a choice of whether or not to make a statement.

In considering whether a statement was obtained by means of any improper conduct or undue pressurewhich impaired the defendant’s physical or mental condition to the extent of undermining his ability to makea choice of whether or not to make a statement, you may consider such factors as:

The defendant’s age, intelligence, and physical and mental condition; and

The conduct of the police during their contact with the defendant, including, for example, the numberof officers who questioned the defendant, the manner in which the defendant was questioned, what the policepromised or said to the defendant, the defendant’s treatment during the period of detention and questioning, andthe length of time the defendant was questioned.

It is for you to evaluate and weigh the various factors to determine whether in the end a statement wasobtained by means of any improper conduct or undue pressure which impaired the defendant’s physical ormental condition to the extent of undermining his/her ability to make a choice of whether or not to make astatement.

EXPERT WITNESS

Ordinarily, a witness is limited to testifying about facts and is not permitted to give an opinion. Where,however, scientific, medical, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the jury understand theevidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness with expertise in a specialized field may render opinions aboutsuch matters.

I have permitted Dr. Salinger to testify to his opinion as to how the techniques used by Detective Potterin obtaining the statements from the defendant might have affected the voluntariness and truthfulness of thestatements given to Det. Potter.

You should evaluate the testimony of any such witness just as you would the testimony of any otherwitness. You may accept or reject such testimony, in whole or in part, just as you may with respect to thetestimony of any other witness. You should use the same tests of credibility you would use in evaluating the

-69-

testimony of any other witness. However, because, unlike a lay witness, an expert witness is permitted to givehis or her opinion, you should weigh the testimony very carefully.

In deciding whether or not to accept such testimony, you should consider the following:

! the qualifications and believability of the witness;

! the facts and other circumstances upon which the witness's opinion was based;

! whether the witness’s opinion is based upon credible evidence proven at this trial;! the accuracy or inaccuracy of any assumed or hypothetical fact upon which the opinion

was based;

! the reasons given for the witness's opinion;

! whether the witness's opinion is consistent or inconsistent with other evidence in thecase; and

! Any bias or interest that the witness may have that would cause the witness to testify ina certain way.

Dr. Corbin Salinger testified to his opinion concerning the defendant’s admissions to Det. BernardPotter, in particular, as to whether the techniques used by Det. Potter could have induced Ralph Sanders tofalsely confess to a crime he did not commit. I did not, however, allow Dr. Salinger to testify as to whether thestatement given by the defendant was a “False Confession”. That is a determination that is left to you, the jury,to determine, based on all the evidence you have heard during the course of this trial. You are free to accept orreject Dr. Salinger’s testimony, using the criteria I have outlined above.

Promise by the Police

A statement of the defendant may be involuntary for the reasons I have just explained to you, and it mayalso, or in the alternative, be deemed to have been made involuntarily if the statement was obtained from thedefendant by a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity by means of any promise or statement of fact,which promise or statement created a substantial risk that the defendant might falsely incriminate himself.

Delay in Arraignment

Under our law, when a person is arrested, the police must bring him or her to court for arraignmentwithout unnecessary delay. Before bringing an arrested defendant to court, the police mayconduct a lineup, maycomplete the paperwork associated with the processing of the arrest, may question witnesses or conduct otherinvestigation relevant to the case, and may question the defendant.

It is not for the jury to determine precisely when the defendant should have been arraigned; however,you may consider whether the police unnecessarily delayed the defendant’s arraignment; and, if so, whetherthat delay, along with other relevant factors, affected the defendant’s ability to make a choice about whether tomake a statement.

-70-

A statement is not involuntary solely because of the length of time before a defendant is arraigned. Thatlength of time is only one of the factors that you may consider in determining whether a statement was voluntary.

Conclusion

If the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement of the defendant wasvoluntarily made, then you must disregard that statement and not consider it.

If the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement of the defendant was voluntarilymade, then you may consider that statement as evidence and evaluate it as you would any other evidence.guilty.

THE CHARGED CRIMES

I will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charged offenses.

Those offenses are Murder in the Second Degree under subdivision one of Section 125.25 of the PenalLaw, Murder in the Second Degree under subdivision three of Section 125.25 of the Penal Law and

MURDER SECOND DEGREEPenal Law 125.25(1)

The first count is Murder in the Second Degree under subdivision one of section 125.25 of the PenalLaw.

Under our law, a person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when, with intent to cause the deathof another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person.

The term "intent" used in this definition has its own special meaning in our law. I will now give you themeaning of that term.

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to cause the death ofanother when that person's conscious objective or purpose is to cause the death of another.

Under our law, it is not required that the person who dies be the same person whose death was intendedto be caused.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all theevidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the following two elements:

1. That on or about August 21, 2015, in the county of Queens, the defendant, Ralph Sanders, causedthe death of Eva Rosenberg; and

2. That the defendant, Ralph Sanders, did so with the intent to cause the death of either EvaRosenberg.

Therefore, if you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements,you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree as charged in the indictment.

-71-

On the other hand, if you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one orboth of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree ascharged in the indictment.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPTFIRST DEGREE

(E Felony)(Violation of an Order of Protection;

Menacing or Threat)PENAL LAW 215.51(b)(I)

(Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1996)

The second count is Criminal Contempt in the First Degree.

Under our law, a person is guilty of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree when, in violation of a dulyserved order of protection, or such order of which the defendant has actual knowledge because he or she waspresent in court when such order was issued, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place a person forwhose protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or deathby displaying a deadly weapon.

Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give youthe meaning of the following terms: "physical injury," "serious physical injury," "intentionally" and "deadlyweapon".

PHYSICAL INJURY means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY means impairment of a person's physical condition which creates asubstantial risk of death, or which causes death, or serious and protracted disfigurement, or protractedimpairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

A defendant INTENTIONALLY places or attempts to place a person for whose protection an orderwas issued in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury, or death when that defendant’sconscious objective or purpose is to do so.

DEADLY WEAPON means any loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing deathor other serious physical injury, may be discharged.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all theevidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following four elements:

1. That on or about August 18, 2015, the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens Countyissued an order of protection that was duly served, or such order of which the defendant hadactual knowledge because he/she was present in court when such order was issued; and

2. That the order was issued for the protection of Eva Rosenberg; and

3. That on or about August 21, 2015, in the County of Queens, the defendant, Ralph Santos , in

-72-

violation of that order, placed or attempted to place Eva Rosenberg in reasonable fear of physicalinjury, serious physical injury, or death by displaying a deadly weapon, and

4. That the defendant did so intentionally.

Therefore, if you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of those elements,you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree as charged in thesecond count.

On the other hand, if you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt any one ormore of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree ascharged in the second count.

Motive When Not an Element of Charged Crime

Let me now explain motive, and in particular, the difference between motive and intent.

Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person commits a criminal act with intent whenthat person's conscious objective or purpose is to engage in the act which the law forbids or to bring about anunlawful result.

Motive, on the other hand, is the reason why a person chooses to engage in criminal conduct.

If intent is an element of a charged crime, that element must be proved by the People beyond areasonable doubt. In this case, intent is, as I have explained, an element of the crimes of Murder in the SecondDegree.

Motive, however, is not an element of the crime charged. Therefore, the People are not required to provea motive for the commission of the charged crime.

Nevertheless, evidence of a motive, or evidence of the lack of a motive, may be considered by the jury.

For example, if you find from the evidence that the defendant had a motive to commit the crime charged,that is a circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to support a finding of guilt.

On the other hand, if the proof establishes that the defendant had no motive to commit the crime charged,that is a circumstance you may wish to consider as tending to establish that the defendant is not guilty of thecrime charged.

Deliberations

Your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agreeto it.

To reach a unanimous verdict you must deliberate with the other jurors. That means you should discussthe evidence and consult with each other, listen to each other, give each other’s views careful consideration,and reason together when considering the evidence. And when you deliberate, you should do so with a viewtowards reaching an agreement if that can be done without surrendering individual judgment.

-73-

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after a fair and impartial consideration of theevidence with the other jurors. You should not surrender an honest view of the evidence simply because youwant the trial to end or you are outvoted. At the same time, you should not hesitate to reexamine your viewsand change your mind if you become convinced that your position was not correct.

Exhibits, Readback & Law Questions

You may see any or all of the exhibits which were received in evidence. Simply write me a note tellingme which exhibit or exhibits you want to see.

You may also have the testimony of any witness read back to you in whole or in part. Again, if you wanta read back, write me a note telling me what testimony you wish to hear.

If you are interested in hearing only a portion of a witness' testimony, please specify in your note whichwitness and, with as much detail as possible, which part of the testimony you want to hear.

Of course, when testimony is read back, questions to which an objection was sustained and materialotherwise struck from the record is not read back.

If you have a question on the law, write me a note specifying what you want me to review with you.

Foreperson’s Role

Under our law, the first juror selected is known as the foreperson. During deliberations, the foreperson'sopinion and vote are not entitled to any more importance than that of any other juror.

When the jury has reached a verdict, guilty or not guilty, the entire jury will be asked to come into court.The foreperson will be asked whether the jury has reached a verdict. If the foreperson says yes, he/she will thenbe asked what the verdict is.

After that, the entire jury will be asked whether that is their verdict and will answer yes or no.

Finally, upon the request of a party, each juror will be asked individually whether the announced verdictis the verdict of that juror, and then, upon being asked, each juror will answer yes or no.

Verdict Sheet

I will give you a form known as a verdict sheet. The verdict sheet lists the count submitted for yourconsideration, and the possible verdicts. Please use the form to record your verdict with an X or a check markin the appropriate place.

Jury Deliberation Rules

Finally, there are a few remaining rules which you must observe during your deliberations.

1. While you are here in the courthouse, deliberating on the case, you will be kept together in the juryroom. You may not leave the jury room during deliberations. [Lunch will of course be provided.] And, if youhave a beeper or cell phone or other electronic device, please give it to a court officer to hold for you whileyou're engaged in deliberations.

-74-

2. You must deliberate about the case only when you are all gathered together in the jury room. Youmust not, for example, be discussing the case as you go to and from the courtroom. It is important that each jurorhave the opportunity to hear whatever another juror has to say about the case, and that by law must only be donewhen you are all gathered together in the jury room. Thus, if for any reason, all twelve of you are not gatheredtogether in the jury room, stop deliberating until all twelve are present in the jury room.

3. During your deliberations, you must discuss the case only among yourselves; you must not discussthe case with anyone else, including a court officer, or permit anyone other than a fellow juror to discuss the casein your presence.

4. If you have a question or request, you must communicate with me by writing a note, which you willgive to a court officer to give to me. The law requires that you communicate with me in writing in part to makesure there are no misunderstandings.

I should explain that, under our law, I am not permitted to have a conversation about the facts of the case,or possible verdict, or vote of the jury on any count with any one juror, or group of jurors, or even all the jurors.Thus, in any note that you send me, do not tell me what the vote of the jury is on any count.

That concludes my instructions on the law.

-75-

Documents

People v. Ralph Sanders - queensda.org Trial Final - October - 20… · People v. Ralph Sanders-Case File-Mock Trial Competition October 29 - October 30, 2016 Kew Gardens, New York