Found Deceased NY - Jennifer Ramsaran, 36, Chenango County, 11 Dec 2012 - #13

[zwiebel]

Oh no. Who the heck missed that one?

I don't understand - are attorneys in the DA's office allowed to practice privately at the same time, or was Ferraresse not in the DA's office at the time, or not an attorney? Did he not bring this previous history to his superior's attention?

Whatever it is, someone should have noticed his connection to the case and got him well out of the way ages ago, and they shouldn't be trying to fight it now. Total waste of taxpayer's money. There's been a big mistake here and there are going to be consequences.

What an utter fiasco. Not that I'm at all worried about the trial, wherever it's held - in fact, I think GR and his words and behaviour will sound even worse to a jury outside Chenango, and this motion to move the trial will do him absolutely no favours at all.

If the DA's office has made a mistake like that - is it possible they could have made another one? Like not noticing someone else should be charged in connection with Jennifer's death, for example?

 

[zwiebel]

UUUuuurgh. I find it so hard to follow US law. Re-reading, GR's attorney isn't trying to move the trial, he's trying to move the DA's office. So, that means they're scared of what Mr McBride can do, so I hope he stays on the case!

Does anyone know which DA/DA's dept could take over the case, if the motion is successful? Or am I completely confused? I feel it. I've only been away five minutes while Mr Z was breaking his leg and it's all gone crazy here.

 

[zwiebel]

So, let me just get this straight;

Chenango County DA's office is prosecuting GR for the murder of Jennifer.

They say part of is motive was that he was having an affair, and wanted to spend the rest of his life with is mistress

That mistress is a material witness in the prosecution. When, where and how she conducted the affair with GR, and when it began, and what pressure it caused in his/her marriages, will probably be very important

An attorney working in the DA's office that is prosecuting GR for the murder of Jennifer, represented said mistress in matrimonial matters before Jennifer died. So whatever she told him then, would be confidential. Even if she had told him, for example, that she had given her lover an ultimatum - divorce your wife by this date or....

So in theory, assistant DA could be prosecuting a case where he KNOWS a vital deadline had been set - and maybe met - or might KNOW someone was lying - and couldn't say a word? But nobody foresaw any problem with this?

Or the fact that some might conclude there could have been issues in the DA's office about bringing charges against a member of staff's former client - if this was ever a consideration of course.

Oh dear. Poor Jennifer. She deserves better.

 

[zwiebel]

I'm really fed up with people who can't defend or speak for themselves being treated carelessly or badly.

 

[Abigail]

Lots of questions on my part as well. I wasn't aware that someone could both be in private practice and also work for the DA's office. But, as you say Zweibel, maybe he was hired by the DA's office after he provided counsel to Mrs. Sayles.

But I'm not quite sure how it is relevant. After all, by his own admission, GR told LE about his affair at the very beginning of the investigation, when Jennifer first went missing; LE would not have needed to get that information from anyone else.

And the attorney in question would be bound by attorney-client privilege, so Mr. F would not be able to reveal anything that Mrs. Sayles told him to LE nor to anyone else in the DA's office.

So, unless Mr. F was assigned to work directly on Jennifer's case, I fail to see where there is an conflict of interest.

 

[upstate]

http://m.thedailystar.com/thedailystar/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=UsZObFpa&full=true#display

Ramsaran attorney: DA's office has conflict

"Several months earlier, the papers note, Ferraresse had been retained by Eileen Sayles of Norwich to assist her on matrimonial issues, and became aware that she had an extra-marital affair with Ganesh Ramsaran, now 38 years old."


If I didn't know any better, I'd say premeditated to the fullest!! When one of my friends went through a divorce a few years ago, her ex retained a few different attorneys and met with many more in an attempt to leave my friend in a pickle when she went to retain an attorney of her own . . . Thankfully the judge saw right through the sham and her ex had to pay through the nose for all the damages done . . . Somebody had listened to, too many old wives tales? Makes you wonder if someone else could be as naive? JMO of course, but boy wouldn't that be dumb? I am an idiot when it comes to law, but I would think the DA would have to be asking quite a few questions of his own?

Apple's and oranges :floorlaugh: ugly oranges at that, but . . . ?

 

[upstate]

Abigail is correct. The judge won't disqualify the DA' s office, everyone works that way in this area

 

[Abigail]

Just did a little checking, and Mr. Ferrarese has been in private practice in Chenango County for a number of years. In 2010, he was sworn in as a part-time Assistant D.A.
http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2010-01-04/8666/Ferrarese-sworn-in-as-ADA/

So, apparently, it is legal to be in private practice as well as serve in the D.A.'s office.

I suppose that in just about any county in the U.S., there are employees of the D.A. that at one time (or concurrently) worked in private practice. Does this mean that the D.A. cannot prosecute a case if someone in the office happened to have represented a material witness in the past?

No. That would mean that most cases would not be able to be prosecuted, especially in small towns where there aren't many attorneys. As long as Mr. Ferrarese did not work on the Ramsaran case, there would not be a conflict of interest.

I liken it to the police force. If, say, a suspect was involved in some sort of relationship with someone on the police force, does that mean the suspect cannot be arrested for a crime? Or that someone has to come in from some other district to arrest the person? Absolutely not. What it means is that anybody who had any sort of relationship with the suspect must not serve in the position of investigator in the case.

 

[ksprincess]

Honestly I would rather just see another DA be assigned the case at this point. I know it would be hard on Chenango DA to have someone else get to prosecute a case they worked so hard for but I would rather see that happen and make sure GR gets convicted. I worry if Chenango keeps it that GR's attorney will do everything possible to say he did not get a fair trial and I don't want to see GR end up not getting convicted or having a conviction overturned down the road because of this.

 

[Abigail]

Found this from the American Bar Association:
http://www.americanbar.org/publicat..._archive/crimjust_standards_pfunc_blkold.html

"(d) A prosecutor who has formerly represented a client in a matter in private practice should not thereafter use information obtained from that representation to the disadvantage of the former client unless the rules of attorney-client confidentiality do not apply or the information has become generally known."

In GR's case, the information about the affair had become generally known, so attorney-client confidentially may not even apply. Furthermore, Mr. F represented ES, not GR, and it was in reference to her own marriage, not GR's alleged murder of JR. Since ES has not been charged with a crime, it cannot be said that information obtained from her representation by Mr. F in any way disadvantaged her in the Ramsaran case.

 

[zwiebel]

For the life of me I can't see what GR's attorney is going to argue for changing DA. 'My client is innocent, his girlfriend is a person of honesty and integrity who had a one night stand with him, but there's a conflict of interest because an attorney she told a completely different story to works in the DA's office?'

I mean, it doesn't make the DA's office look good but it also makes his client look like a liar, frankly. GR publically insisted he only had a one-night stand and Jennifer didn't know. The media articles are all out there with that statement. Yet it's GR's own attorney who appears to be bringing attention to the fact that's unlikely to be the truth.

I don't know what ES will say in court of course, and I haven't seen any media statements from her, but I'm sure her testimony is going to be hugely important to this case. I think GR's attorney knows it too, and I'd love to know what his tactic towards her is. One thing's for sure, he'll have his client's welfare at heart, not hers. I have a feeling someone more accustomed to men who'd do anything for them might be coming down to earth with a nasty bump in the courtroom.

Defence lawyers don't charm easily, especially when they're in a tight corner. I still think this is a mess, but it's reassured me even more that the DA has a strong case, oddly enough.

 

[Abigail]

Actually, I don't think GR ever said it was a one-night stand. I believe that was the spin put on it by his PR person (and btw, in going through the old threads, it appears that the PR person had not even met GR at that point in time -- only had phone conversations). What GR did say publically and adamantly was that the affair had nothing to do with Jennifer going missing.

Therefore, Zweibel, I agree that it's a bit awkward for GR's lawyers to argue conflict of interest without admitting that GR lied -- and, about...what? That the affair DID have something to do with Jennifer's murder?

I think they know they're pretty much sunk with this case and are grasping at straws. And....I think they are petrified of ES's testimony -- of what she might say in court...and are using this smokescreen to try to get her testimony thrown out.

 

[SouthAussie]

When following an Aussie case this year, I learned that ADA’s here in Australia can also be in private practise.

Apparently, it is pretty common for an attorney to have a private practise and work on a contract basis for the DA’s office. It is considered an economical way to have enough ADAs to fulfil the ever-changing workload, while the attorney can still make his own profits in his own legal practise.

So, it must be considered irrelevant whether they have their own practise or not. As long as they abide by the law and maintain no conflicts of interest.

 

[zwiebel]

BBM

Actually, I don't think GR ever said it was a one-night stand. I believe that was the spin put on it by his PR person (and btw, in going through the old threads, it appears that the PR person had not even met GR at that point in time -- only had phone conversations). What GR did say publically and adamantly was that the affair had nothing to do with Jennifer going missing.

Therefore, Zweibel, I agree that it's a bit awkward for GR's lawyers to argue conflict of interest without admitting that GR lied -- and, about...what? That the affair DID have something to do with Jennifer's murder?

I think they know they're pretty much sunk with this case and are grasping at straws. And....I think they are petrified of ES's testimony -- of what she might say in court...and are using this smokescreen to try to get her testimony thrown out.

So if it's proved to be untrue, it's nothing to do with him? What a forward-thinking, manipulative man.

 

[SouthAussie]

There are witnesses to GR’s affair with ES. There are people out there who knew how ‘happy’ GR was with ES. How he wanted to ‘spend his life with her’. Motive will be pretty easy to prove.

And due to the time and circumstances (home alone with GR) of Jen’s disappearance, opportunity will be pretty easy to prove too.

It will all come down to the means.

 

[Solus]

There are witnesses to GR’s affair with ES. There are people out there who knew how ‘happy’ GR was with ES. How he wanted to ‘spend his life with her’. Motive will be pretty easy to prove.

And due to the time and circumstances (home alone with GR) of Jen’s disappearance, opportunity will be pretty easy to prove too.

It will all come down to the means.

I don't think the affair by itself was the motive. The affair + x could = motive. Not saying that it didn't contribute or even spawn the x. If the prosecution has only a circumstantial case, then I would think there needs to be an explanation of the x.

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think the affair by itself was the motive. The affair + x could = motive. Not saying that it didn't contribute or even spawn the x. If the prosecution has only a circumstantial case, then I would think there needs to be an explanation of the x.

I agree Solus ..

‘x’ = GR wanting to keep the house, and keep the children

‘x’ = Jen seeking advice elsewhere

‘x’ = Jen never agreeing to give up the children or their home

‘x’ = Jen seeking child support

‘x’ = life insurance policy on Jen

‘x’ = GR losing his cool when he realised things weren’t going to go exactly as he planned

Unfortunately, these are all common excuses in the murder of a spouse, and I think that all could be proven through relevant witness testimony.

 

[Abigail]

I agree Solus ..

‘x’ = GR wanting to keep the house, and keep the children

‘x’ = Jen seeking advice elsewhere

‘x’ = Jen never agreeing to give up the children or their home

‘x’ = Jen seeking child support

‘x’ = life insurance policy on Jen

‘x’ = GR losing his cool when he realised things weren’t going to go exactly as he planned

Unfortunately, these are all common excuses in the murder of a spouse, and I think that all could be proven through relevant witness testimony.

Excellent post! I do hope that the defense doesn't win their campaign of turning a key material witness hostile to the prosecution.

 

[zwiebel]

I'll find it incomprehensible if the witness jumps on the sinking ship of the defence. When it goes down it is going to drag anyone within reach down with it, and for what? I can imagine standing by someone serving a very long prison sentence must be pretty limiting, if not downright tedious. A weekly visit in the unpleasant surroundings of a jail, for year after year after year.....

You would really have to be certain someone was worth it to do that. Jennifer seemed a pretty loyal type of person, with a heart of gold. But if what happened to her is any example, standing by GR just a little bit too long doesn't seem to be a good idea at all.

 

[zwiebel]

When 'reasons' to murder someone are boiled down to a blunt list, don't they seem pathetic.

All that damage and destruction for 'reasons' that are ultimately worthless. What a stupid, stupid choice for someone to make.