NORWICH – Defense Attorney F. Stanton Ackerman, representing Ganesh R. Ramsaran, 38, of New Berlin – who has been indicted for second degree murder, an A-I violent felony in relation to the death of his wife – filed a motion to disqualify Chenango County’s District Attorney from prosecuting the alleged murderer, claiming a conflict of interest and asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor outside of the county District Attorney’s Office to try the case.
The defendant stands accused of murdering his wife on or about December 11, 2012, in their home located at 449 Sheff Road in the Town of New Berlin. First reported missing by her husband on the same day she is alleged to have been murdered, the search for the missing Ramsaran lasted for seventy-seven days before she was found. On Feb. 26, 2012, the late Ramsaran’s body was located, exposed to the elements down an embankment adjacent to Center Road in the Town of Pharsalia. Following an investigation by the Chenango County Sheriff’s Office, her husband was arrested on May 17 and a criminal complaint formally accusing him of murder was filed.
In a court paper received on July 17, Ackerman claims his client will be placed at an unfair disadvantage because Chenango County Assistant District Attorney Micheal Ferraresse was previously involved in civil court proceedings with Eileen Sayles. The court paper claims Sayles was party to an extramarital affair with Ramsaran and that she will be a material witness should the case go to trial.
In the document, Ackerman states that Sayles “vehemently denies any involvement or any criminal conduct regarding the death of the late Jennifer Ramsaran.”
Furthermore, Ackerman states the defense’s belief that, during the course of the investigation into the death of Jennifer Ramsaran and in conjunction with the D.A.’s Office, the Chenango County Sheriff’s Office focused on Sayles as well as the accused. It is also claimed – and not contested – that Ferraresse had been retained as part of his private practice several months before the disappearance of Ramsaran by Sayles while she was pursuing a divorce from her husband.
Ackerman also states the defendant has been made aware that – during two conferences with Ferrarese, prior to Jennifer Ramsaran’s disappearance – Sayles had provided him with details regarding the alleged affair.
During the defendant’s arraignment and subsequent to his indictment on May 23, Chenango County District Attorney Joseph McBride stated in open court, while speaking on the matter of bail, that the late Jennifer Ramsaran had consulted with a matrimonial attorney prior to her disappearance.
In the July 17 court paper, Ackerman also claims Ferrarese, as a private practitioner, had taken on Sayles’ daughter as a client in a separate Family Court matter.
In response, Ferrarese filed a court paper in opposition to the motion to disqualify the Chenango County District Attorney’s Office, dated July 29. In the July 29 court paper, Ferrarese states that – although he is prohibited by law to disclose the details of the civil matter involving Sayles – the defendant has “suffered no actual prejudice in this matter as a result of my representation of Ms. Sayles.”
Ferrarese also states in the court document that he never informed McBride nor anyone else of the details of his legal dealings with Sayles. Furthermore, he addresses the claim that he has provided Sayles’ daughter with legal counsel, stating his secretary had at first accepted the assignment because Sayles’ daughter has a different last name and the connection between the two was not initially made. Once it was discovered, however, Ferrarese had the case reassigned to another attorney and never met or spoke to her in regards to her pending Family Court matter.
In a reply affirmation dated Aug. 1 and filed on behalf of the defendant, Ackerman refutes some of Ferrarese’s claims, stating that while he is not questioning the integrity of the DA’s office, he finds it hard to believe they had not in some way discussed the matter. He also stated his intention to provide a written statement briefly summarizing what Sayles claims she said in regards to her interactions with Ferrarese. In the Aug. 1 affirmation, Ackerman also claims, “It is the prosecutor’s intention to attempt to show in this circumstantial evidence case a motive for the defendant to allegedly murder his wife, which was the fact that the accused was having a relationship with Eileen Sayles, and that there was some inkling that she was going to return to her husband; all of this information, upon information of belief, known by Michael Ferrarese, Esq.”
During an affirmation filed by McBride in response to the defense’s motion to disqualify, McBride explicitly states Ferrarese never shared any information regarding his representation of Sayles. He also states Sayles was never considered to be a suspect in the late Ramsaran’s death.
“I am aware of no situation or circumstance creating a conflict by my office’s prosecution of the defendant … There is absolutely nothing in defendant’s moving papers or otherwise to demonstrate that there is an actual conflict,” reads McBride’s affirmation.