SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CO PY COUNTY OF ROCKLAND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION against - Index #2 2016-1 89 IRA BERNSTEIN, Hon. David Zuckerman Defendants. -- SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed af?rmation of Jeffrey T. Millman and the af?davit of Ira Bernstein and the exhibits annexed thereto and all prior proceedings herein, the undersigned will move this court, at the Courthouse 1 South Main Street, New City, NY 10956 on February 13, 2018 at 9:30 am. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for an order vacating the Plea entered on January 9, 2017 and sentence imposed by this court on May 17, 2017, convicting the defendant of Conspiracy in the Second Degree, pursuant to CPL 440.10 upon the grounds that the plea and judgement were improperly procured; and Dismissing the instant indictment due to violations pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 US. 83, 84?88( 1963, granting such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to CPLR 2214(b), answering af?davits, if any, are required to be served upon the undersigned at least (7) days before the return date hereof. Dated: Stony Point, New York January 22, 2018 Jeffrey T. Millman Phillips Millman, LLP Attorneys for Defendant 148 South Liberty Drive, Stony Point New York, 10980 - 845-947-1 100 TO: Hon. David Zuckerman 1 South Main Street New City, NY 10956 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION - against Index #2 2016?189 IRA BERN STEIN, Hon. David Zuckerman Defendants. Jeffery T. Millman, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York, af?rms as follows: 1 . I am the attorney for Defendant Ira Bernstein in this matter and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. I submit my af?rmation in support of defendant?s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the plea of guilty entered on January 9, 2017 and resulting sentence of May 17, 2017, based upon misrepresentation of evidence, false evidence by a prosecution witness and coercion in the plea, thereby depriving the defendant of his due process rights and right to a fair trial. Relevant Procedural History: On January 9, 2017 Dr. Ira Bernstein (hereinafter ?Bernstein?) entered a guilty plea to amended indictment 2016?189. The plea was made on the date this matter was scheduled for Jury selection and was made based upon knowledge Bernstein had upon evidence obtained through discovery and subsequent negotiations with the Rockland District Attorney?s Of?ce, as well as his contact with chief prosecution witness and cooperating witness, co-Defendant Kelly Gribeluk, (hereinafter ?Gribeluk?). 10. The indictment charged Bernstein with one count of conspiracy in the second degree, a class felony, two counts of Conspiracy in the ?fth degree, class A misdemeanors. Additionally, the indictment charged one count of Criminal Solicitation in the second degree and two counts of Criminal Solicitation in the fourth degree. Bemstein?s plea offer to satisfy all matters was to enter pleas to the ConSpiracy in Second Degree and Conspiracy in the Fourth Degrees (two counts) in violation of Penal Law Section 105.15 and 105.05 to cover as dismissed the remaining counts in the indictment. As a consequence of the plea offer Bernstein was to receive a negotiated sentence of 5-15 years in State prison. This motion raises new issues concerning the plea which was induced based upon fabrication and unreliable evidence produced by Gribeluk, an agent of the Rockland County District Attorneys Office (hereinafter It has now been learned by the undersigned that Bernstein?s plea was guided not by the credible evidence in this case, but by the coercive acts of the Peoples agent/informant - Gribeluk who worked Bernstein to plead guilty rather than go to trial. Relevant Information On or about September 2016, The Rockland County District Attorney and the 'Ramapo Police began working with Co-Defendant Gribeluk as a cooperating witness in the investigation and prosecution of the case against Bernstein. Upon information and belief, prior to the People ?signing? Gribeluk up as an informant to make their case they vetted her for truthfulness and knowledge as to what she could offer the prosecution to make their case against Ira Bernstein. Upon information and belief, the District Attorney met several occasions while Gribeluk was incarcerated to determine her worth to their cause. After several meetings it was agreed and negotiated by Gribeluk through her attorney Jonathan Ripps and the District Attorney?s of?ce, to set minimal bail to release her from jail so that she could continue making their case as this matter proceeded toward trial. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Annexed hereto as Exhibit is a true copy of the ?Memorandum of Agreement? (hereinafter ?Agreement?) negotiated between counsel for Gribeluk and the DA. This Agreement outlines the scope and responsibilities of Gribeluk in exchange for favorable recommendations at her sentencing on this indictment. The Agreement clearly states Gribeluk?s requirement for complete and truthful disclosure of all information relevant to her cooperation with the Rockland County District Attorney?s Of?ce. The Agreement pursuant to paragraph 8 states in substance, should Gribeluk fail to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, Gribeluk would thereby forfeit any bene?t she would have earned for her cooperation. The Agreement outlines her requirement to meet when required, offer evidence both out of court and, if required, in Court for the sole purpose of convicting Bernstein. This agreement further outlined the consequences should Gribeluk lie, fail to cooperate or violate other terms within the scope of the relationship, calling for the agreement to become void and any favorable recommendations to not be offered at her sentencing in this case. Upon the formal execution of this Agreement, Gribeluk pleaded guilty to the indictment and was released on signi?cantly lowered bail. Upon her release, without the immediate knowledge of the District Attorney, Gribeluk and Bernstein began living together notwithstanding Gribeluk having signed this con?dential ?Memorandum of Agreement?. Upon information and belief, Gribeluk hid the knowledge from the District Attorney that she was living with and continuing relations with the main target of her Agreement. Upon information and belief, through the efforts of their own investigation it was the Rockland D.A who uncovered the continued relationship between Gribeluk and Bernstein sometime in October 2016. Rather than dismiss Gribeluk from service it appears a decision was made to keep Gribeluk on as their informant, cooperator and agent notwithstanding the inherent potential for conduct by Gribeluk to adversely impact Bernstein?s Constitutional Rights. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Notwithstanding Gribeluk and Bernstein engaging in their relationship, the Rockland District Attorney continued to work with Gribeluk as they believed she would offer evidence at trial against Bernstein. Between October and December 2016, without the knowledge of Bernstein, Gribeluk was struggling with the task she signed up for to testify against Bernstein at trial and ensure his conviction. Gribeluk was aware that if she backed out of the Agreement she made with the DA she would risk enhanced sentencing on this matter. It is now clear, in an effort to appease the DA, Gribeluk played the roles of agent of the Prosecution by day and girlfriend to Bernstein by night. Notwithstanding this newly discovered dilemma faced by the DA, the DA appeared to have concluded there remained signi?cant bene?t to the Peeple in keeping Gribeluk on as their agent and informant, and continued to work with her through the date of Ira Bernstein?s sentencing in May 2017. Upon information and belief, as the months progressed, and this matter proceeded toward jury selection, the frequency of the meetings between Gribeluk and the DA increased. This information as to the dates of meetings were known to Bernstein as he was the person driving Gribeluk to the DA for the meetings she was having in preparation for trial against Bernstein. The obvious con?ict between these two roles Gribeluk held should have been identi?ed and reconciled upon the DA learning of the continued relationship between her and Bemstein._ Rather than extinguish her relationship with the DA, Gribeluk continued to prepare for trial by offering information to be used against Bernstein and answer all questions truthfully pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Misrepresented Evidence Annexed hereto as Exhibit is the af?davit of Gribeluk detailing her involvement as agent of the DA. Based upon the evidence gathered by Bernstein, the defense in this matter hinged on evidence of Duress and Renunciation at trial. 29. It was the defense position of Dr. Bernstein from the inception of this case that co- Defendant Gribeluk was acting alone when she sought out a hit man to murder Susan Bernstein in April 2016. The credible evidence of which Bernstein was advised by Gribeluk in April 2016, was that Gribeluk sought out Markensy Louissaint, a car salesman who had offered in the past to hurt Gribeluk?s then-husband. 30. Gribeluk without Bemstein?s knowledge, met on ?ve occasions between April 4, 2016 and April 8, 2016 with Louissaint, planning the ?hit? on Susan Bernstein. 31. Gribeluk without Bernstein?s knowledge gave photographs to Louissaint of Susan Bernstein and ?nalized a price for the ?hit?. In fact, the credible evidence supports that Gribeluk and Louissaint met during the day, late at night and on weekends to plan this crime. They researched through Louissaint?s computer locations of Susan Bernstein?s pr0perty so that Louissaint would be best prepared to carry out this crime. 32. It was after the police had involved themselves and ?ve meetings with Louissaint already had occurred, that Gribeluk ?rst advised Bernstein as to what she had done in planning the Conspiracy with Louissaint. 33. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to have testi?ed to his lack of involvement up until April 9, 2016, nearly ?ve days after Gribeluk and Louissaint began to hatch this conspiracy. 34. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to have testi?ed that upon learning of this plan to murder Susan Bernstein, Bernstein told Gribeluk to back out of this conspiracy because he did not want to proceed forward with the hatched plan. 35. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to testify as to her several efforts to back out from the attempts she made to conspire to commit the crimes as charged in the indictment. Bernstein expected Gribeluk to testify to the typed messages she sent to Louissaint on acebook inquiring as to the ability not to go forward. 36. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to have testi?ed that when she began to back out of the conspiracy, as Bernstein requested her to do, she was met with threats of harm to her, her children, Bernstein and his children. 37the threats commenced and grew over the next several weeks, Gribeluk advised Bernstein of these threats. In advising of these threats it was expected Gribeluk would have testi?ed at trial as to the signi?cant impact of the fear of Louissaint?s threats of imminent use of unlawful physical force and the threats of force against Gribeluk and Bernstein. And how this placed Bernstein in a position where he would have been unable to resist involvement. As such, Bernstein out of this fear was pulled into Gribeluk and Louissaint?s conspiracy. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to have testi?ed that after three weeks of the madness and fear, Bernstein demanded Gribeluk do whatever she must to do to renounce any and all efforts to further this conspiracy. In reliance on credible evidence at trial, Bernstein expected Gribeluk to have testi?ed that he commanded Gribeluk to completely withdraw from the participation of the offense prior to the commission of the crime. And in making that demand Bernstein relied 0n Gribeluk testifying as to her efforts to back herself and Bernstein out of this conspiracy. Pursuant to Gribeluk?s af?davit annexed here as Exhibit Gribeluk while working as an informant and cooperating witness informed the District Attorney of the threats made by Louissaint against Gribeluk and Bernstein. Further, Gribeluk advised of a speci?c instance involving Louissaint telling her about an ?Alligator Story?, in which where people who tried to back away from the hitmen the way Gribeluk was trying to back away, would be killed and fed to alligators. According to Gribeluk and supported by the af?davit of her attorney Jonathan Ripps, annexed hereto as Exhibit upon Gribeluk telling of coercive and threatening events which would have supported Bernstein?s Duress defense, she was met with resistance as the DA and police believed these stories were lies and/0r misrepresentations. In honoring their obligation under Brady, the Rockland DA served notice on December 31, 2016 of the story of claimed coercion and Bernstein?s request to Gribeluk to renounce his involvement in the conspiracy. Though, missing from a complete Brady disclosure was the critical fact that the DA believed their agent and 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. informant, Gribeluk, was in fact lying about this information. Notwithstanding what they believed were lies, they decided to continue allowing her to work as their witness. Assuming the DA and police believed Gribeluk was lying as to this material piece of evidence, pursuant to the Agreement, they would then have been required to cease her involvement as their witness and cut her loose from her reSponsibilities to their of?ce as the contract Memorandum of Agreement between Gribeluk and the Rockland County DA required. Instead, rather than extinguish the Memorandum of Agreement for this glaring violation, it appears that a decision was made to allow Gribeluk to continue her role as informant and agent of the DA. According to the af?davits of Ripps and Gribeluk, the prosecutor and police believed Gribeluk was lying and as a result of ?her not being truthful, and other inconsistencies, they may no longer be able to use her at trial and that she may be violating her agreement with the District Attorney?s Of?ce? Ripps A??idavz't paragraph 19. Even though Gribeluk maintained her truthful cooperation, she was told that if she maintains untruthful stories her cooperation agreement would be terminated. In fact, notwithstanding Gribeluk maintaining the stories of duress and renunciation, she was made to fear immediate incarceration for lying and an enhanced sentence. Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Ripps Af?davit, it was discussed omitting references to coercion and duress if she was called as a witness. Upon the advice of her counsel, Jonathan Ripps and the fear of being sentenced to enhanced time, Gribeluk agreed to omit from trial any reference to coercion and duress, the absolute keystone to Bernstein?s af?rmative defenses in this matter. As a result of this hatched plan to create false evidence should this matter proceed to trial, Gribeluk, while still working for the DA began to hatch a plan to protect herself from being forced to testify falsely. What occurred next can only be corrected by vacating the plea and sentence in this matter. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. After Gribeluk was labeled a liar for offering truthful facts as to coercion, duress and renunciation, she sought a way to work both ends of her fractured life. Gribeluk acted as cooperating witness by day. She appeared to have promised to testify if this matter goes to trial the way the Investigators believed the evidence had unfolded during their investigation. Though, at night when she was alone with Bernstein she began a campaign to coerce him into a plea of guilty rather than risk a trial where she would not be truthful as to the af?rmative defenses. Annexed hereto as Exhibit is the af?davit of Ira Bernstein. Bernstein outlines in detail how he was advised by Gribeluk that ?she was not allowed to testify to threats Louissaint made to her against Kelly, her children, me and my children.? And that he was advised by Gribeluk that the DA believes she is lying and that if she testi?es to that information her deal would be ?off?. Gribeluk A?idavit paragraph 30. Bernstein, unable to explain to the undersigned that the only source of evidence concerning his affirmative defenses of Duress and Renunciation was advising that she would not be truthful at trial, had only one choice to plead guilty to reduce his exposure at trial. Pursuant to the affidavit of Gribeluk, she repeatedly on a daily basis as trial approached, kept pushing Bernstein toward a plea. While Gribeluk was working as an agent of the Rockland County Office in her capacity as a cooperating witness, she repeatedly told Bernstein that she would not be honest at trial and would not testify to the facts concerning Duress and Renunciation. By doing this, the creation of false evidence was hatched, and the fear being instilled in Bernstein proved too great. As a consequence of Gribeluk?s pressure, Bernstein took a plea under duress. New evidence undermines the plea requiring it to be vacated: Based upon the af?davits of Kelly Gribeluk, Jonathan Ripps, and Ira Bernstein, it is clear that Bernstein was forced into a plea based upon the DA informant?s willingness to omit truth from this trial. Notwithstanding the plea minutes annexed hereto as Exhibit when the Court allocuted Bernstein and asked ?Has anyone coerced, forced or threatened you in any way in order to get you to plead guilty?? (plea minutes page 14 line 25 though page 58. 59. 60. 61. 5 line 2), the very nature of why he plead guilty and the daily ?threats? of Gribeluk providing false evidence at trial, rose to a coercive environment that resulted in Bernstein?s guilty plea. The inability of Bernstein to properly allocute based upon coercion in the taking of the plea is relevant to Bernstein?s request to vacate his plea. As in this case, Bernstein has not clearly accepted or acknowledged every element of the crime charged in that his af?rmative defenses lay excuse to the Peoples? proof in this matter. People v. Thompson, 174 702 (NY. App. Div. 3d. Dept. 1991). The Plea was not intelligently given: (Duress) A plea of guilty is constitutionally valid only if it is voluntarily, competently, and intelligently given, Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 618 (1998); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468 (1938). Collateral review of the plea in this case is warranted, as the defendant relied upon evidence which was fabricated by Gribeluk in her willingness to offer false evidence at trial. As a result. the plea was not "voluntary, intelligent, and entered into with the advice of counsel. United States v. Brace, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Our courts have recognized that although "a defendant's decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily in?uenced by his appraisal of the prosecution's case, and of information that may be available to cast doubt on the fact or degree of his culpability, we conclude that even a guilty plea that was ?knowing' and ?intelligent' may be vulnerable to challenge if it was entered without knowledge of material evidence withheld by the prosecution." Miller v. Angliker, 848 F.2d 1312, 1320 (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). In this matter, the fact that the agent and material fact witness, Gribeluk, was willing to withhold truthful evidence to ?protect? her deal with the Bernstein?s plea was exclusively in?uenced by this critical information that was withheld from counsel. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in Brady v. United States, supra, has made clear that a plea is valid only in the "absence of misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents." 1d. at 757. As cited above, since a defendant's decision whether or not to plead guilty is often heavily in?uenced by his appraisal of the prosecution's case, and upon information that may be available to cast doubt on the fact or degree of his culpability, we conclude that even a guilty plea that was- knowing? and "intelligen may be vulnerable to challenge if it was entered without knowledge of material evidence withheld by the prosecution?s witness. Miller at 1320. Due process requires that a guilty plea be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. See Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 US. 175, 183 (2005). (New York Courts have stated that. standard for determining the validity of a guilty plea is -whether the plea represents a voluntary intelligent choice among alternative courses of action open to the defendant?) Urena v. PeOple 0f the State of N. Y., 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 610 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (quoting Ventura v. Meachum, 957 F.2d 1048, 1058 (2d Cir.l992). A ?plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea is voluntary in a constitutional sense unless induced by threats, misrepresentation, or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper." Bouslev v. United States, 523 US. 614, 619 (1998) (internal quotations omitted). Caban v. Rock 2009 WL 636476, *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 11, 2009). A plea of guilty must be entered by a defendant who understands the situation and who has been neither deceived nor coerced. Schnautz v. Beta, 416 F.2d 214, 216 (5th Cir. 1969). Assuming that in reply, the DA contends there never were threats made to Gribeluk, and that Gribeluk for all purposes created a ?ction to gain a plea in this matter, the facts still support that Gribeluk while pressuring Bernstein to plead guilty did so as a witness, agent, cooperating witness, informant or any other designation this Court chooses to grant her, of the Rockland County Of?ce. It is clear, Gribeluk through threats and intimidation, acquired Bernstein?s guilty plea. Essentially, as a cooperator Gribeluk was initially tasked to work toward a conviction and whether it be through trial or otherwise she accomplished her task without having 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. to testify falsely to protect her deal with the People. This cannot be tolerated, and a plea resulting from these actions cannot stand. CPL 440.10, governs motions to vacate judgments and therefore to vacate pleas. It is submitted that the instant motion shows: that 1) the plea "procured by duress, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the court or a prosecutor or a person acting for or in behalf of a court or a prosecutor." 440.1 0(1 2) improper and prejudicial conduct not appearing in the record resulting in the judgment which conduct, if it had appeared in the record, would have required a reversal; and 3) "New evidence has been discovered since the entry of the plea which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant." Id. at (IKE) It is further submitted that the plea and judgment of conviction were also invalid pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) as judgment was obtained in violation of a right of the defendant under the constitution of this state or of the United States'. It is submitted that the proven misconduct of Gribeluk (See Gribeluk Af?davit, Ripps Af?davit and Bernstein Af?davit) warrants that Bernstein?s guilty plea be vacated under each of the above subsections of CPL 440.10. Permission to vacate a guilty plea is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court and must be granted where there is evidence of innocence, fraud or mistake. See PeoPIe v. Totman, 269 617 (N .Y. App. Div. 3d Dept. 2000); People v. Walker, 266 727 (N .Y. App. Div. 3d Dept. 1999). The lack of personal knowledge of their agent/infonnants/cooperator?s misconduct on the part of the District Attorney?s of?ce is not signi?cant or relevant to an assessment of the voluntariness of the plea accepted by this Court. As the Supreme Court held in Kvles v. Whitley, 514 US. 419, 437 (1995), -'the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.? It would therefore follow that it is incumbent upon the People to address the validity of the Defendant?s plea in the context of the recent disclosure of the misdeeds of Kelly Gribeluk. This motion is being made after the disclosure of the relevant information by the co-Defendant Kelly Gribeluk and her counsel, and following the review of the plea minutes and other relevant factors. No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made to this Court. Wherefore, it is respectfully requested that the plea of January 9, 2016 and sentence of May 17, 2017 be vacated and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. JEFFREY T. MILLMAN Dated: January 22, 2018 Stony Point, New York .n hm: 51,, may 1KM @3559}; Mam. MEMORANDUM OF. AGREEMENT This memorandum of agreement sets forth all understandings, promises, conditions anxi agreements i11 existence between Kelly Gribeluk and the Rockland County District Attorney's Office [hereinafter "this Office"] regarding'the cooperation of Kelly Gribeluk with this Office concerning the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity: 1. It is agreed that this memorandum of agreement constitutes the Office. 2. Kelly Gribeluk has agreed to furnish full and complete cooperation to this Office and to any other law enforcement agency acting with this Office or so designated by this Office concerning the prosecution of Ira Bernstein in Rockland County, New York. Such cooperation shall-include, but not be limited to, immediate, full, complete and truthful disclosure of all information relevant to criminal activity known by Kelly Gribeluk related to the above prosecution. Kelly Gribeluk further agrees to attend any meeting to discuss matters relating to the above-described cooperation when this Office requests such attendance. If this Office determines that it is necessary that Kelly Gribeluk be released from custody in furtherance of any investigation, Kelly Gribeluk agrees to abide. by all conditions of such release and to appear in court as requested by this Office or required by the Court. Failure to abide by all conditions of such release forfeits any claim to the benefits otherwise due to Kelly'Gribeluk under this agreement. 3. Kelly Gribeluk agrees to truthfully testify as a witness in any trial or other proceedings at which this Office requests her or' any other law enforcement agency to testify. . 4. Kelly Gribeluk agrees to refrain from all further criminal activity during the pendency of this agreement. 5. Kelly Gribeluk agrees to admit her guilt and enter a plea of guilty to the crimes of Conspiracy in the Second Degree and two counts of Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree in full satisfaction of the charges pending against her. This Office will make no sentence recommendation to the court until this Office determines that Kelly Gribeluk provided full and complete cooperation and truthful testimony and that such cooperation and testimony are no longer needed in the prosecution of the aforementioned matter. If Kelly Gribeluk does provide full and complete c00peration and truthful testimony, this Office will make the extent of Ms. Gribehm?s cooperation known to the Court and will recommend a sentence no less than four to twelve years imprisonment. This office will rest with the discretion of the Court concerning Ms. Gribeluk?s eligibility for participation in the Shock Incarceration Progrann 6. This Office agrees not to offer as evidence in the People's case?in?chief against Kelly Gribeluk ?ll any proceeding, except prosecution for perjury or false statements against Kelly Gribeluk any statement made or testimony given by Kelly Gribeluk pursuant to this agreement. 7. Kelly Gribeluk understands that all information ?and must be 'complete and- information or testimony -'is not complete or.truthful in any material aspect, Kelly Gribeluk forfeits any claim to the benefits otherwise due to him.under this agreement. Furthermore, should it be determined by this Office that Kelly Gribeluk has given materially false or incomplete information or testimony, he w?l be subject to prosecution for any appropriate violation of the Penal Law, including but not limited to perjury. Examples of materially false or incomplete information or testimony include, but amanot limited to, the following: - a) Falsely withholding the name of a person involved. b) Falsely identifying as a participant a person who is not involved. c) Transposing the roles of participants. d) Substantially misstating one's own participation or the participation of others in criminal_activity.- e) Misrepresenting the source of one's knowledge. 8. If Kelly Gribeluk fails to comply with any of the terms of this agreement or commits any* new cu: additional crimes, this agreement will not be binding upon this Office, and Kelly Gribeluk thereby forfeits any claim to the benefits otherwise due to him under this agreement. In such circumstances, this Office will seek to have Kelly Gribeluk sentenced upon his aforementioned pleas of guilty, and nothing shall bar this Office from recommending to the Court at sentencing that Kelly Gribeluk receive any lawful sentence deemed appropriate by this Office under the circumstances. 9. It is further, understood. by the parties ?that this agreement is limited to this Office and cannot bind other State, Federal, or local prosecuting authorities, except as they are bound by operation of law, although this Office agrees to report the nature and extent of Kelly Gribeluk?s cooperation to other law enforcement or judicial authorities as requested. 10. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this agreement, nothing shall bar this Office from prosecuting Kelly GribelukIEor perjury if Kelly Gribeluk fails to testify truthfully in'any'Gnand Jury proceeding, pretrial hearing, trial or other proceeding. 11. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions have_ been entered into by_the undersigned other than those set for?l in this memorandum, and none will be entered into unless in uniting and signed by all of the parties. The signatures below indimate the signatories' understanding and agreement that this memormuhnn .fully and accurately reflects the parties. DATED: New City, New York September 28, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGED: THOMAS P. ZUGIEE District Attorney Rockland County /7 I .f By: Richard?Kennison Moran xe?ufive Assistant District Attonmqr Kellyr ?ribeluk Jonathan Ripps?i Attorney for Kelly Gribeluk 7121"? 51761;?? . . . 1 )1 "a COUNTY COURT: COUNTY OF ROCKLAND STATE OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AFFIDAVIT -against? Indictment 2016-189 IRA BERNSTEIN and KELLY GRIBELUK Defendants. Kelly Gribeluk, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I was a co-defendant in the above-captioned matter. 2. I am making this af?davit post sentencing on the above matter in support of Defendant Ira Bemstein?s motion to vacate his plea on the Conspiracy charges brought forth under indictment number 2016-189. 3. After I was indicted on the charges under this instant indictment I entered into a cooperation agreement with the Rockland County District Attorneys to cooperate in their prosecution of my co-Defendant Ira Bernstein in September 2016. 4. As part of my cooperation agreement I was advised that I must cooperate fully with the District Attorney?s Of?ce which included meeting with the District Attorneys handling the case, meeting with the Town of Ramapo Police who investigated the case and at all times answer their questions fully, completely and honestly. Further, as part of my agreement I was to offer truthful testimony at any hearing and trial that may occur. 5. In exchange for my cooperation, the District Attorney consented to a lower bail with the understanding I was able to post the amount set by the Court so that I could be released with an ankle bracelet confined to my home until the conclusion of this case. Also, in 10. 11. exchange for my cooperation, I was told I would receive a reduced sentence from the offer originally made to me at the conclusion of Ira Bernstein?s case. However, I was advised that if at any time I violated any of the terms of the cooperation agreement, which included offering false information, the District Attorney would revoke my bail status and return me to jail pending sentencing which would include a sentence greater than if I satisfactorily honored my cooperation agreement. After I was released from jail, Ira Bernstein and I reconnected in our relationship and began to cohabitate as boyfriend and girlfriend. Pursuant to my obligation with the District Attorney I advised them of my status with Ira Bernstein and was advised that although they could not request me to tape him if I was able to get him to admit conduct that is criminal, even if I were to ?on my own? get it on tape, I would get a highly favorable recommendation at sentencing. This offer was made to me after I had a signed cooperation agreement in place. Between September 2016 and May 2017 I met over ten occasions with the District Attorney and the Detectives from Ramapo PD in preparation of the instant matter as well as other matters involving criminal activity in Rockland County. On each of the occasions I answered the questions they posed and offered honest responses. I was well aware of my obligation to be truthful and I honored that obligation. In December 2016 while being questioned by Richard Moran of the Rockland County District Attorney?s Office with Ramapo Detectives present I discussed the coercive conduct of Markensy Louissant who positioned himself as the ?hitman? in this matter. I told the prosecutors and the police about the many meetings I had with Mr. Louissant 12. 13. 14. where he threatened my life, my children?s life and the lives of Ira Bernstein and his children if we backed out of the conspiracy to murder Susan Bernstein. In fact, I discussed with the prosecutors speci?c examples of the threats he made starting with the acebook messages where Ira Bernstein directed me on April 8, 2016 to ?get us out of this situation? when I ?rst told him about me ?nding a hitman. I told the prosecutors what I wrote Mr. Louissant on acebook messenger and what he replied and how I took his words to be threatening. I further discussed with the prosecutors and police that I met several times on days they had no surveillance in place. I discussed on those unsupervised meetings Mr. Louissant threatened to have me, Ira and our children killed if we back down. On one occasion Mr. Louissant advised me about a girl that tried to back out the way I was trying to back out and as a consequence she was to be fed to alligators in Florida so that no person will ?nd her remains. I further advised the prosecutors and the police during the meetings in preparation for trial, in response to the questions regarding the conspiracy to assault the insurance investigators that the reason Ira and I planned the assaults was not to do it as a ?test run? like they believed but because we believed that the only way to get ourselves out of this conspiracy without hurting Susan Bernstein was to offer the hitmen some jobs to hopefully appease them and then they would go away after receiving some money. After I told the prosecutors of this information as well as the alligator story they began to yell at me and call me a liar. My lawyer, Jonathan Ripps was present during this one conversation where the police stated they did not believe me and if I was going to testify to that ?story? they would be done with me and they would no longer work with me as a cooperating Defendant. In fact, as a result of me telling them the truth about how 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Markensy Louissant threatened me and Ira as well as our families I was told by the prosecutor they may revoke my bails status and return me to jail. They even told me was in violation of my cooperation agreement?. Further, the prosecutors told me that if I continue with this story that I knew to be true I was going to go back to jail. As such I felt I was being encouraged to withhold the truth at trial in order to keep my deal under the cooperation agreement. This made me distraught and scared. I was doing everything I told the prosecutors I would do and the truth was now being perceived as a lie by me to help Ira Bernstein Win his case. As a result of now being hurt by the truth While still an agent of the People I returned home to Ira Bernstein and began telling him he should take a plea deal because if we go to trial I was not willing to risk an enhanced sentence and testify to the threats and coercion made by Mr. Louissant. In fact, I repeatedly on a daily basis kept pushing Ira toward his plea so as to minimize his risk but also to protect me from having to testify in this matter because as I discussed with Ira I would not be allowed to testify to coercion and duress if I wanted the District Attorney to use me at trial so I get my deal. As we approached January 9, 2017, (the date of Ira Bemstein?s trial) I met more frequently with the Prosecutors and police. I relayed to them my efforts to get Ira to take a plea and in fact began negotiating with the Prosecutors on Ira?s behalf in an effort to keep me from having to testify and strike a deal Ira would take. Finally, the weekend before trial was set to commence, while acting as a cooperator in this case I got Ira Bernstein to understand that regardless of his defenses that can only be brought out through my testimony I was not going to testify to coercion and duress at trial because I was speci?cally advised these allegations I made of coercion and duress were perceived a lies by me and would result in me breaching my agreement with the District Attorney. 21. As a result of the District Attorney not allowing me testify to the truth of the coercive conduct of Markensy Loussaint, the evidence I would have offered under oath which would have tended to show the innocence of Ira Bernstein would not be allowed to come out at trial by me if I was to remain protected with the cooperation agreement. 22. As such, the risk of being truthful at trial was outweighed against losing my agreement for a lower sentence. 23. As a result of the meetings with the District Attorney?s Of?ce and police had I testi?ed at trial the truthful facts that led to the indictment would not have been offered by me as a witness and the alternative version that did not include the issues of duress and coercion would have been suppressed due to the fear the prosecutors placed on me while holding the cooperation agreement over my head. 24. I have read this af?davit in its entirety and swear to the truth of its contents. Kelly Gribeluk Subscribe sworn to before me this day of 0c ber 2017 Notary \P-ul?flic JONATHAN 3. amps Notary Public, State of NewYork ~502Rl30?f-3719 Quali tied in Count Commission piras October 02. 50:, I COUNTY COURT: COUNTY OF ROCKLAND STATE OF NEW YORK - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AFFIDAVIT -against- Indictment 2016-189 IRA BERNSTEIN and KELLY GRIBELUK Defendants. Jonathan Ripps, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. 2. I am an attorney duly admitted and licensed tO practice law in the State Of New York. I am the attorney for Kelly Gribeluk hereinafter ?Gribeluk?, the co-Defendant of Ira Bernstein under indictment 2016-189. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances giving rise to Defendant Ira Bernstein?s motion to vacate his plea and sentence pursuant to CPL section 440.10. I make this af?davit as to observations I witnessed while my client, Gribeluk, was working as a cooperating witness for the Rockland County District Attomey?s Of?ce in the prosecution Of Ira Bernstein. On or about September 2016, my client, Gribeluk, entered into a cooperation agreement with the Rockland District Attorney to assist in the investigation and prosecution of Ira Bernstein as it relates to the Conspiracy to Murder Susan Bernstein and conspiracy to Assault John Spindler and Michael DeStefano as well as other matters raised by the District Attorney. During Gribeluk?s initial meetings with the Rockland County District Attorney I was present as legal counsel for the purpose of the District Attorney assessing my client?s truthfulness, extent Of the information she had to offer in their prosecution of Ira Bernstein and the quality of the information she had in the prosecution of Ira Bernstein. 7. 10. ll. 12. 13. Throughout the initial meetings, Gribeluk answered questions posed to her by police and prosecutors. As a result of Gribeluk?s involvement and the quality and reliability of her information, the Rockland District Attorney eventually agreed to lower her bail to an amount my client was able to post, conditioned on her wearing an ankle bracelet to monitor her location. Further, Ms. Gribeluk was promised a favorable recommendation at her sentencing upon her matter, conditioned on her continued cooperation in a truthful manner. It was understood and memorialized in her cooperation agreement which was termed ?Memorandum of Agreement? that should Gribeluk violate any of the terms of her agreement, the agreement would no longer be binding and would be terminated. It was understood that if Gribeluk did violate the agreement she could be remanded to jail and upon sentencing, she would get no credit for her involvement. Further, if it was determined she had lied to the prosecutors or police, she would be in violation of her agreement and subject to enhanced sentencing. As part of my representation of Gribeluk, I addressed with her the primary importance of being truthful when answering questions posed by the District Attorney and the police. From September through mid-November, 2016, Gribeluk, while accompanied with me, met with the District Attorney's Of?ce on a regular basis to answer questions raised involving the prosecution of Ira Bernstein. Sometime between September 2016 and October 2016, it became known to the District Attorney that Gribeluk and Ira Bernstein had re-established their relationship after she was released from jail. Prior to Gribeluk?s release, she was advised by the prosecutor that she would not be tasked with af?rmatively acquiring incriminating information from Ira Bernstein. 14. 15. 16. 17. l8. 19. However, she was advised by police to report any voluntary/spontaneous incriminating statements made to her by Bernstein, and that such information could be helpful to the outcome of her matter. From October 2016 to November 2016, Gribeluk continued to meet with the District Attorney?s of?ce and answered questions they posed to her. On or about late December 2016, while Gribeluk was answering questions posed to her about the police informant, Markensy Louissant, she began to relay her fears that Mr. Louissant and/or his hit men would harm Gribeluk, Ira Bernstein and their children with violence if they tried to back out of the conspiracy. Gribeluk brought up an instance where the informant - Louissant threatened them with a story of what happens to people who back out of such deals with the hit men. The informant, according to Gribeluk, told her they would be fed to an alligator so no one would ever ?nd their remains. Upon hearing of the alligator story, the Prosecutor and police began to become agitated, accusing Gribeluk of misrepresenting information to them in violation of her c00peration agreement. They were concerned that Gribulek was making such statements in order to help condefendant Bernstein. The police were visibly frustrated with Gribeluk and advised her that she could be violating her cooperation agreement. Notwithstanding the confrontation, Gribeluk maintained that the statements involving an alligator were indeed made to her. She advised that Markensy Louissant insinuated that she, Ira and their children would be threatened with bodily harm if they backed out of the arrangement. The prosecutor and police asked her if she was lying and making up a story to protect her boyfriend, Ira Bernstein. Gribeluk maintained that story as truthful. At the meeting where Gribeluk mentioned the alligator story, she was advised by the prosecution that because of her not being truthful, and other inconsistencies, they may no longer be able to use her at trial and that she may be violating her agreement with the District Attorney?s of?ce. The prosecutors told her that if she was going to continue as a cooperator, she would have to testify truthfully, and if she could not do so, it would impact her ability to be a witness, as well impact her cooperation agreement. I also advised her of the same. 20. Later that month, I was advised by co-defendant?s counsel of Rosario material wherein Markensy Loiussant told the police that while meeting with Gribeluk at an unsupervised and unrecorded meeting, he relayed a story about an Alligator. 21. After reviewing the document authored by the police in April 2016, I pointed out to the Prosecutor that it appeared that Gribeluk could have been truthful. Notwithstanding that discussion, Gribeluk was told they believed she was now contradicting her previous representations and making an attempt to help with co-defendant Bernstein?s matter. At that time, I advised her that if she was not truthful, she would be risking violating her agreement. 22. After this exchange occurred, I worked diligently to maintain her relationship with the District Attorney?s Of?ce and to protect her from the termination of her agreement. As part of my private discussion with Gribeluk, we discussed the extent of the content of her testimony should the matter go to trial. We discussed potentially omitting any reference to coercion and duress if she were to be called as a witness. l) Jonathan Ripps, Esq. Subscrag?A and sworn to before me this I ay of October, 2017 YANIRIS CASTILLO NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01CA6248212 Qualified in Rockland County My Commission Expires 09-19-26-3 Notary Publ .- - ??ing-?la: .. g. E. . ?EXhi it? . . . COUNTY COURT: COUNTY OF ROCKLAND STATE OF NEW YORK THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AFFIDAVIT ~against? Indictment 2016?189 IRA BERN STEIN and KELLY GRIBELUK Defendants. Ira Bernstein bein dul 'sworn, de osethe defendant in the above?captioned matter. I am making this affidavit post sentencing on the above matter in support of my motion to vacate my plea on the Conspiracy charges brought forth under indictment number 2016- 1 89. I plead guilty to the instant indictment only because I was unable to receive a fair and honest trial on this matter. The People by their actions in dealing with their agent Kelly Gribeluk, would have allowed false evidence to be used at trial. - As a direct consequence of allowing false evidence, my fear of being convicted should the truth not be allowed at trial forced me to take a plea. After I was indicted on the charges under the instant indictment, I retained legal counsel to challenge the allegations against me on several grounds including but not limited to, valid defenses of Duress and Renunciation based upon the credible facts underlying this matter. The af?rmative defenses which I would have proven at trial, hinged on the truthfulness of the testimony of my co-defendant Kelly Gribeluk. about September, 2016, I learned from Kelly Gribeluk that she became a cooperating witness with the District Attorney?s Of?ce to offer evidence against me before trial and that, should this matter have proceeded to trial, she would have been compelled to testify against me. I was told by Kelly Gribeluk that she was operating under strict terms of a cooperation agreement with the prosecutor which, should she testify against me at trial, would have earned her a lenient sentence. Between September 2016 and May 17, 2017 Kelly and I spent our days together with the knowledge of the Rockland County District Attorney?s Of?ce. Between September 2016 and the date of my plea on this matter, January 9, 2017, I had several conversations with Kelly Gribeluk about my desire to go to trial on this case based upon the truthful evidence which would have supported my af?rmative defenses of Duress and Renunciation. It was discussed that the only way to offer this evidence was for Kelly to be truthful at trial, as she was the person dealing with Louissant in text and in person. Kelly Gribeluk?s truthful testimony at trial was paramount to my defense. Kelly, while in search of a ?hit man? to murder Susan Bernstein, found Markensy Louissant on her own, without my knowledge and initially met with him alone, negotiated the particulars of the crime during several meetings, again without my knowledge. Further, Kelly ?rst advised me of what she had done after the police commenced the investigation into this matter. Essentially, I was drawn into her con3piracy. The day I learned of this plot hatched between Kelly Gribeluk and Markensy Louissant, I. told her to back out of the conspiracy. As a result of my request Kelly texted the hitman through acebook messenger. According to Kelly, after she texted him she received a reply indicating there was no backing out of the conspiracy. This was the beginning of a long road of threats and coercion and ultimately, pressure for Kelly to move forward with this crime. By doing so, these threats pulled me further and further into this conspiracy. 14. Initially, I was aware that Kelly tried to text through Facebook Messenger, the police informant Louissant, to get us out of this conspiracy. Kelly reported to me that it is not something that she can easily back out of because Louissant advised her the ?hit men? were here in New York and ready to do the job she conspired with Louissant to perform. She further advised me these hitmen are dangerous people and other than Louissant she never met the other hit men but was told they are real and deadly. 15. As a result of this conduct I felt extreme pressure to meet with the hitman, that same day, April 9, 2016. 16. After the April 9, 2016 meeting, Kelly advised me that she met several more times in April 2016 the conspiracy. On multiple occasions, Kelly reported, Louissant threatened to kill me, Kelly and our children if we backed out. 17. Every move I made thereafter was done out of fear for my children and myself. I relied on Kelly?s declarations of imminent danger which would befall us if we backed out. 18. Kelly told me of encounters where Louissant threatened our killings and being fed to alligators and threatened us with black op?s hitmen that ?don?t take no for an answer? and ?cannot be messed with without consequences?. 19. Further, notwithstanding the facts leading up to the conspiracy, on May 1, 2016 I told Kelly that I would never go through with the conspiracy to murder Susan Bernstein 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. regardless of the consequences and told her that she must back us out of this conspiracy once and for all. As a result of my insistence, on May 1, 2016, Kelly texted Louissant to meet with him. I was aware that she spent hours trying to meet with him for the sole purpose of renouncing our involvement in the conspiracy to murder Susan Bernstein. Initially Kelly waited in the CVS parking lot in the Town of Ramapo for hours before she was told by Loiussant to meet at Walmart in the Town of Ramapo. The sole purpose of that meeting again, was to renounce our involvement in the con3piracy. Upon information and belief it was in the Walmart parking lot where Kelly was arrested without the opportunity ?back us out? of the conspiracy, as I demanded her to do so. I knew that the only way to get the truth of the Duress and Renunciation to the jury would be to have Kelly testify to her conversations with Louissant and to testify as to what she told me after she met alone with Louissant on those several occasions. I learned through the discovery portion of my case that the police failed to adequately monitor Louissant and Kelly?s meetings in that they taped and recorded only some of the meetings between them. The police allowed their civilian informant, Louissant, to investigate on his own, to meet with Kelly on his own, and to say what he wanted on his own without the protections of police oversight. According to Kelly, she met with Louissant approximately ?ve times that the police were well aware of, yet for whatever reason did not attend, video or audio capture the meetings. 26. It became clear that the only people who knew what occurred at these meetings were Louissant and Kelly. It is for this reason that Kelly?s truthful testimony would have been essential for me to receive a fair trial. 27. On or about December, 2016, while preparing for trial Kelly, began meeting more frequently with the District Attorney?s Of?ce. On each of the occasions, I would drive Kelly to and from her meetings with the police and prosecutors, after which she began to pressure me into taking a plea deal. 28. Kelly stated that she was not allowed to testify to the threats Louissant had made to her against Kelly, her children, me and my children. 29. Kelly advised me that she was told by the District Attorneys handling the case that they believed she was lying about the threats and coercion made by Louissant and that the multiple threats, including the story of being fed to alligators, would violate and terminate her c00peration agreement with the District Attorney?s Of?ce and send her directly back to jail. 30. Further, Kelly told me she would not be allowed to testify to that information because they believe she was lying and that if she testi?es to these lies, her deal will be ?off? and she will get an enhanced sentence after my trial. 31. Kelly told me that she was not going to testify completely truthful at trial because of her fears of the District Attorney reneging on their ?deal? and her potential enhanced sentence. 32. Essentially Kelly stated she was going to hold back from telling the truth about the threats Louissant made to her which she then relayed to me as threats to me and my children. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Kelly then began her campaign to convince me to take a plea rather than to risk atrial for which she would not offer evidence of Duress and Renunciation. During the trial preparation my lawyer discussed with me the necessity for Kelly to be truthful at trial on all issues in order for me to succeed on the af?rmative defenses of duress and renunciation. I begged Kelly to be truthful but she would not risk ending her ?deal? with the DA therefore compelling me to plead guilty. In her effort to compel me to take a plea, Kelly advised that the District Attorney and police called her claims of duress lies used to help me out of trouble and because they ?believe? the duress information was untruthful, she would not testify to it at trial. Kelly advised me the District Attorney and police told her she violated her cooperation agreement by lying when she told them of the threats made by Louissant. Kelly advised me that District Attorney threatened to end her cooperation deal and send her right back to jail if she doesn?t change her story to one that is devoid of duress. I believed that without Kelly?s truthful testimony I would have been convicted after trial. Notwithstanding my absolute desire to have this case tried to prove my innocence, I was distraught in learning from Kelly that she would not testify truthfully at trial regarding the duress, coercion and her efforts to renounce the conspiracy. I therefore instructed my lawyer to negotiate a plea deal before trial rather than risk conviction due to the false testimony of the District Attorney?s witness. After I was sentenced, I disclosed to my lawyers that Kelly, while working as an agent of the District Attorneys Of?ce, compelled me to plead guilty through her repeated declarations that she would not testify truthfully at trial as to the actions that would have supported my af?rmative defenses of duress and renunciation out of fear of losing her deal that she struck with the District Attorney. 42. As a result of the conduct of the DA and Kelly Gribeluk, I was forced to plead guilty only because I was deprived of having a fair prosecution and would have been deprived of having a fair trial. 43. I have read this af?davit in its entirety and swear to the truth of its contents. Ira Bernstein Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31 day of October 2017 3mm 20. Notary Public SUSAN M. SABI Notary Public. State of NEW York Registration Qualified In Jefferson County Commisswn Expires Dec. 28, 2019 . COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ?against- Indictment No.: 189-2016 IRA BERNSTEIN, Defendant. PLEA Rockland County Courthouse One South Main Street New City, New York January 9, 2017 BEFORE: HON. DAVID S. ZUCKERMAN, Judge of the County Court APPEARANCES: For the People: THOMAS P. ZUGIBE, ESQ., Office of the District Attorney One South Main Street New City, New York 10956 BY: RICHARD K. MORAN, ESQ. Senior Assistant District Attorney For the Defendant: PHILLIPS MILLMAN, LLP 148 Route 9W Stony Point, New York 10980 BY: JEFFREY T. MILLMAN, ESQ. ALSO PRESENT: Ira Bernstein, Defendant Robert Coyne, Senior Court Clerk Leslie Arzoomanian, Senior Court Reporter THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Are there any members of the press here that need to make an application to the Court? THE CLERK: Number one on the Court calendar, for jury selection, People versus Ira Bernstein, Indictment 189?2016. Please step up and note your appearance. MR. MORAN: Richard Moran for the People of the State of New York. Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Moran. MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, good morning. Jeffrey Millman, from the Law Firm of Phillips Millman, 148 South Liberty Drive, Stony Point, New York, on behalf of Dr. Ira Bernstein, present to my right. THE COURT: Nice to see you, as always, Mr. Millman. MR. MILLMAN: Thank you, your Honor. You, too. THE COURT: Good morning, Doctor. THE DEFENDANT: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Are there any members of the media here that wish to make an application to the Court? There are. Sir, can you just please stand up and identify yourself. MR. MILMER: I am Chris Milmer with ABC News. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ma'am. MS. KELLER: Keller, with Dateline, NBC. THE COURT: Good morning to both of you. I received faxed transmissions from both your offices, requesting audio/video recordings of the proceedings. The record should reflect that I had a conference earlier this morning, I think about five minutes ago, with both Counsel. I notified them of same. It is my understanding that it is anticipated by the parties that this matter is going to be resolved or disposed of this morning. With that in mind, what is the People's position with respect to audio/video coverage and/or recording? MR. MORAN: We rest with the Court's discretion, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. What is the Defendant's position, Mr. Millman? MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, as we indicated earlier, we are objecting to any visual or audio recording in the courtroom. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. What I am going to do is the following: Over the Defendant's objection, I am going to permit audio and video recording. Now, my understanding is there is actually more than two news outlets who wish to record the proceedings today. I say this for the benefit of the two of you, who have indicated that you want to do that. I only permit one camera in the courtroom. So, that camera, you can work it out, whoever it is going to be, will have to be a pool camera for everybody. Is that acceptable to you, sir? MR. MILMER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Ms. Keller. MS. KELLER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. You can work that out between you, as well as whatever proper media outlets are present. My Order includes the following: First, that Order is limited to today's proceedings only. Second, I will not permit any artificial light enhancement, flash or otherwise, in connection with the video recording. Third, there will be no photography or audio recording in the hallways of the Courthouse, in the lobby, or anywhere other than my courtroom. I basically don't control anything that happens outside of the four corners of the building. What we are going to do is second call the matter, to give you a chance to set up whoever's camera is going to be here. I am going to tell you now that I will direct that the camera and the camera operator be limited to the jury box here. Second call. Thank you. MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, thank you. (At which time, the proceedings in this matter were adjourned, pending a second call.) THE CLERK: Recall number one on the record, the People versus Ira Bernstein, Indictment 189?2016. All parties are present again. THE COURT: Let the record reflect both Counsel remain the same and are present. Thank you for your patience, everybody. MR. MILLMAN: You are welcome, your Honor. THE COURT: I mentioned earlier that I had a conference this morning in the presence of both Counsel. At that conference, I was told that the parties had been communicating since the last time they were here, and have reached a mutually?agreeable resolution. Let me first express the Court's gratitude to both Counsel for doing so. As a result of all of that, Mr. Millman, do you now have an application on behalf of Dr. Bernstein? MR. MILLMAN: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. On behalf of Dr. Bernstein, he has authorized me to withdraw his previously?entered plea of not guilty to the amended Indictment 2016?189, and enter a plea of guilty to Counts 1, 3 and 5 of said Indictment, in full satisfaction of the Indictment before this Court. THE COURT: Are those three pleas, in full {satisfaction, acceptable to the People? MR. MORAN: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, your attorney tells me that you want to enter three separate guilty pleas to satisfy this Indictment. Before you can do that, I must be satisfied that you understand all of the rights that you have, which you will be giving up by pleading guilty. To accomplish this, I am going to have you placed under oath. I am then going to ask you a very long series of questions. If there is anything that I ask you that you don't understand; or if, for any reason, you want to speak to Mr. Millman before responding to my questions, just tell me, and I will give you as much time as you need to speak with him before you respond. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Please raise your right hand and direct your attention to the Clerk of the Court. THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE DEFENDANT: I do- THE CLERK: Put your hand down. Just state your name, for the record, please. THE DEFENDANT: Ira Bernstein. THE CLERK: May I have your date of birth? THE DEFENDANT: 4/23/74. THE CLERK: Your address, presently. THE DEFENDANT: 9 Graniks Way, Montebello, New York 10901. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, I am going to ask you to please keep your voice up, nice and loud. I want to make sure I hear everything that you have to say. All right? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Before we proceed further, I want to be certain that you understand the People's plea offer, as well as the negotiated sentence. THE DEFENDANT: I do. THE COURT: If you plead guilty to three separate charges, that being the First Count, Conspiracy in the Second Degree, and the Third and the Fifth Counts, each of which are Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree, and if I accept Ifyour guilty pleas, the negotiated sentence is as follows: On the Conspiracy in the Second Degree Count, you will sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration of five to fifteen years. On each of the Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree Counts, you will be sentenced to a term of incarceration of six months, with those three sentences to run together, or concurrently, with each other. There is also a mandatory surcharge of three hundred dollars, a Crime Victims' Fee of twenty?five dollars and a DNA Data Bank Fee of fifty dollars. In addition, the People will be filing what is known as a Superior Court Information on an unrelated matter; and, on that matter, you will plead guilty to Grand Larceny in the Third Degree. And on that Superior Court Information, at the time of sentence, I will sentence you to an indeterminate term of incarceration of one to three years, with that sentence, likewise, to run concurrent with the other three. In connection with that Superior Court Information, there would, likewiSe, be the same mandatory surcharge of three hundred dollars, a Crime Victims' Fee of twenty?five dollars, a DNA Data Bank Fee of fifty dollars, as well as a restitution order, where you will be required to pay restitution, the amount of which, apparently, has not yet been determined by your Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney. Have you understood everything I have said so far, Dr. Bernstein? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: I want to tell you, sir, that there are three conditions that you must abide by in order to receive the benefit of that negotiated disposition that I have just described. One, you must lead a law?abiding life between now and whenever sentence is imposed. You can't even be arrested again. TWO, I am going to order a presentence investigation in your case. As part of that process, you are going to be interviewed by the probation officer. So, in connection with that interview, at a very minimum, you have to show up on time. You have to bring any documents the probation officer asks you to bring, and you must answer all the probation officer's questions truthfully, including, again, admitting your guilt to these very same crimes. The third condition is that you have to be here in Court whenever your case is scheduled to be heard, and not be late. If you violate any one of those conditions, sir, I won't be bound by this negotiated plea agreement that I described to you earlier. I could sentence you up to the maximum sentence allowed by law, which, under the First Count of the Indictment, which is a Class felony, has a maximum of eight and a third to twenty?five years in State's Prison, with those same fees and surcharges. Have you understood everything that I have said so far, Dr. Bernstein? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, did you hear your attorney's application, on your behalf, that you wish to enter pleas of guilty to the First, Third and Fifth Counts of the Indictment, that being Conspiracy in the Second Degree and two Counts of Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Is that what you want to do, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: Have you had sufficient time to discuss this matter with your attorney and to make the decision to plead guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Are you completely satisfied with the services and representation provided to you by your attorney? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, I am going to tell you right now, certainly in my courtroom, no one can force you to plead guilty to anything ever. In fact, the decision whether to plead guilty is yours, and yours alone, to make. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: .Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: By pleading guilty, however, you will waiving, or giving up, certain constitutional rights. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Amongst those rights is the right to a trial by judge or by jury. And if it were by jury, the jury would be comprised of twelve citizens of Rockland County, whose verdict would have to be unanimous. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: At that trial, you would be presumed innocent. You would have the right to confront any evidence presented against you, present evidence on your own behalf; and, if you wanted to, to testify on your own behalf. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: You would also have the absolute right to remain silent; and if you exercise that right, no negative inference could be taken against you for doing so. Do you understand that, as well? I THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: You would also have the right to require the prosecution to prove every element of a charge against you, beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to obtain a conviction on that charge. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: By pleading guilty, however, there will be no trial, and you will be waiving all of those rights that I just described, as well as others. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you further understand that your pleas of guilty will result in three convictions, just as if you had gone to trial and been found guilty of Conspiracy in the Second Degree and two counts of Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: I made a sentence commitment to you on the record here, just a few minutes ago. Other than what I told you about what your sentence would be, has anyone made any other representation to you or promised you anything else in order to get you to plead guilty, sir? THE DEFENDANT: NO. THE COURT: I?m sorry? THE DEFENDANT: NO, sir. THE COURT: Has anyone coerced, forced or threatened you in any way in order to get you to plead guilty? THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Has anyone given you anything in order to get you to plead guilty? THE DEFENDANT: NO. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, within the past twenty?four hours, have you ingested any alcoholic beverages, drugs, medications or anything else that could possibly affect your ability to understand what is happening here in Court today? THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor. THE COURT: Are you admitting your guilt and entering these three pleas of guilty freely and voluntarily, and because it is what you want to do? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: On each count, are you pleading guilty because you are, in fact, guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: As a result of entering your pleas here today, you will be convicted of a felony. Do you understand that if, in the future, you are again convicted of a felony, you could be subject to a greater sentence than if you had not been convicted of a felony in this case? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Moran, have you provided Mr. Millman with a written Waiver of Right to Appeal? MR. MORAN: I have, Judge. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, that document, that is on your table right now, is a written Waiver of Right to Appeal. Please review it with your attorney. If it is acceptable, sign it where appropriate. Thank you. MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, we did review it. It is acceptable and it has been signed. THE COURT: Thank you. Dr. Bernstein, I am holding up now and showing you a document entitled Waiver of Right to Appeal, Indictment 2016?189. The caption- reads: "The People of the State of New York versus Ira Bernstein, Defendant." Sir, is that your signature in the lower portion of this document? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Did you read it before you signed it? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Did you understand it? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Did you fully discuss the contents of this document with your attorney before you signed it? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, ordinarily, a defendant retains the right to appeal, even after he or she pleads guilty. As a condition of this negotiated plea, however, the People are requiring that you waive your right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Appellate Division, Second Department. Taking an appeal means going before a rhigher court and asking that court to reconsider issues concerning your conviction and/or sentence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, is a higher Court than this one. Do you understand this right to appeal, as I have just explained it to you, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: If you wanted to take an appeal, but could not afford an attorney, you would have the right to have an attorney assigned to assist you in bringing your appeal. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: By waiving your right to appeal, as a condition of this plea, you're specifically giving up your right to have your conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher Court; and, therefore, your conviction and sentence will be final. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Waiving your right to appeal is separate and distinct from pleading guilty. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Have you fully discussed what it means to waive your right to appeal with your attorney? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: In consideration of this negotiated plea, do you now, voluntarily, waive your right to appeal your conviction and sentence under this indictment? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Millman, in furtherance of this negotiated plea, do you now withdraw all motions made on behalf of Dr. Bernstein, whether pending or decided, including, but not limited to, any motions made seeking suppression? MR. MILLMAN: YOur Honor, we would withdraw that at this time. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, do you understand the statements that you make here today, in connection with these pleas of guilty, may be used against you in the future, in other proceedings, as they are admissions of guilt? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Are you a citizen of the United States, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Moran, will you kindly set forth, on the record, the factual allegations the People had intended to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, under the First, Third and Fifth Counts of the Indictment, had this matter gone to trial. MR. MORAN: Yes, Judge. Thank you. With respect to Count One of the Indictment, your Honor, the People would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant, acting in concert with Kelly Gribeluk, between April 4th, 2016 and May 2nd, 2016, did, with the intent that conduct constituting a Class A felony in this case, Murder in the Second Degree be performed, agreed with Kelly Gribeluk and another individual, who ended up being a confidential informant, to engage in conduct to cause the performance of that murder. Specifically, your Honor, the Defendant agreed with one or more persons to cause the death of Susan Bernstein. To carry that out, your Honor, the Defendants, on or about April 9th, 2016, did meet with the informant, along with Kelly Gribeluk. He did give Ms. Gribeluk money on that date, and that money was eventually paid to the informant for the purpose of causing the death of Susan Bernstein. Further, your Honor, with respect to Count Three of the Indictment, the People would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant, in the County of Rockland, State of New York, between April 19th, 2016 and April 26th, 2016, did agree with Kelly Gribeluk and another person, who was the police informant, to cause conduct, which is Assault in the Second Degree, to be performed; and in doing so, intentionally agreed to cause serious physical injury to a person named John Spindler, who was an investigator for the Empire Plan and Insurance Company. To carry this out, the Defendant, on April 19th, 2016, or about that date, did give twenty?five hundred dollars to Kelly Gribeluk, and that money was eventually paid to the informant for the purpose of causing serious physical injury to John Spindler. Further, your Honor, on April 26, 2016, the Defendant did meet with the informant, for the purpose of confirming that the person assaulted was, in fact, John Spindler. Similarly, with respect to Count Five, your Honor, the People would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that between April 19th and April 26th, 2016, the Defendant did agree with Kelly Gribeluk and another person, the same informant, to cause serious physical injury to Michael Stephano; and to carry that out, again, your Honor, on April 19th, 2016, or about that date, did give twenty?five hundred dollars to Kelly Gribeluk, which was eventually turned over to the informant, for the purpose of causing serious physical injury to Michael Stephano. And, again, your Honor, on April 26, 2016, the Defendant did meet with the informant for the purpose of confirming that the individual who was injured was Michael Stephano. THE COURT: All of which happened in the County of Rockland, Mr. Moran? MR. MORAN: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, did you hear and understand everything that the Assistant District Attorney just said? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Is it true and accurate, in every respect? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Sir, have you understood everything that has happened here in Court today? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do the People recommend acceptance of the three pleas? MR. MORAN: We do, Judge; THE COURT: Dr. Bernstein, is that what you want me to do: Accept your pleas of guilty to Conspiracy in the Second Degree and two counts of Conspiracy in the Fifth Degree? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: I will do so. I find that each plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. We will adjourn for sentence to May 16th. The People's position with respect to continued bail or otherwise? MR. MORAN: Judge, the People would consent to continuing bail, your Honor. We are asking that the Court issue new Orders of Protection for John Spindler, Michael Stephano and Susan Bernstein, pending sentence. THE COURT: Kindly provide them to Mr. Millman. MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, thank you. We have no objection to the Orders of Protection being signed by the Court. THE COURT: If so, kindly have your client sign them in open Court to acknowledge that service was made upon him. Let the record reflect the Court has also signed the two separate Temporary Orders of Protection. Dr. Bernstein, these two Orders, which I have now signed, require that you have absolutely no contact With Susan Bernstein, Joseph Spindler and Michael Stephano. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: may not communicate with them in any manner: Telephone, texting, internet, social media. You may not have anyone else do so on your behalf. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: You may not go to any location where these people may be found, whether it be home, place of business, school or otherwise. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: If you find yourself anywhere near any of those three people, sir, you are directed to immediately leave that location. Do you understand? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Not only are these now my Orders, which means if you violate them, you are subject to additional prosecution in the nature of criminal contempt; they are also conditions of the negotiated disposition that your lawyer worked so hard to get for you, sir, meaning, if you violate these Orders, it is very likely that I am going to give you an enhanced sentence. Do you understand that, as well? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Sir. MR. MILLMAN: Your Honor, if we could make one amendment to the Order of Protection. THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. MORAN: My client is actively going through a matrimonial right now. When he is in this Courthouse, there are occasions where he is within the distance that is restricted or prohibited within the Order of Protection. THE COURT: Granted. r/1'MR. MILLMAN: I would ask your Honor to make that amendment. Thank you. THE COURT: Anything else from either Counsel before we adjourn? Mr. Moran? MR. MORAN: No, thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Millman? MR. MILLMAN: No, thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, Counselors. MR. MILLMAN: Have a good one. 000 CERTIFICATION Certified to be a true and accurate record of the within proceeding. Leslie M. Arzoomanian Senior Court Reporter -aqainst 1/3 1 10901 8/9 10956[1] 1/15 10980[1] 1/20 148[2] 1/192/14 16th 23/15 189 6/21 16/20 189?2016[3] 1142/6 5/23 19th 21/4 21114 21125 22/5 2 . 2016 [13] 1/4 2/6 5/23 20/7 20/7 20/19 21/4 21/5 21/14 21/19 22/1 22/5 22/11 2016-189 6/21 16/20 2017 1/9 26 21/19 22/11 26th 21/5 22/1 2nd 20/7 4 4/23/74 8/6 4th 20/7 7 7411] 8/6 9 9111 20/19 9wr1] 1/19 A ABC 3/2 abide 10/13 abiding 10117 ability 15/11 about 3/12 14/18 20119 21114 2215 absolute 13/16 absolutely 24111 accept 8125 23/8 acceptable 4116 7/1 16113 16116 acceptance 2315 accomplish 7110 accurate 22122 26/18 acknowledge 24/4 acting 2016 actively 25/20 actually 4/8 addition 9/15 additional 2518 address 817 adjourn 23115 2614 adjourned 5120 admissions 19/15 admitting 11/4 15114 affect 15110 afford 18/3 after 17112 again 5124 10119 11/3 1611 2214 22111 against 113 13110 13118 13123 19114 ago 3113 14117 agree 2115 22/1 agreeable 6/10 agreed 20110 20116 2119 agreement 11/10 alcoholic 1519 all [10] 414 4120 5123 6113 7/7 8114 1112 1415 1914 22115 allegations 19122 allowed 11112 alone 12/19 along 420/20 - also 1122 9111 13115 13121 2416 2519 always 2117 am [11] 312 4/5 416 5/14 7110 7111 8111 101201211416/18 25113 amended 6121 amendment 25118 26/2 Amongst 1311 amount 1016 and/or[2] 3121 17/21 another 20111 2116 2212 answer 1112 anticipated 3116 any [15] 212 2123 412 5/1 7114 10125 1118 13110141191511 15181917 24116 24121 2512 anyone 14119 14125 1514 24118 anything 5/8 7113 12117 14120 1514 15110 2613 anywhere 516 2511 apparently 1017 appeal [13] 1618 16112 16120 17111 17115 17118 171241813 1815181918115 18120 18125 appearance 2/7 APPEARANCES 1/12 Appellate 17116 17121 application 213 2124 6114 11121 appropriate 16114 April [10] 2017 20119 2114 2115 21114 21119 21125 2211 2215 22111 are [27] arrested 10119 arti?cial 511 Arzoomanian 1125 26121 26122 as [24] 2117 4/1 4121 4121 6113 7116 7117 8119 8119 912 9116 10141014 10121 13119141514161411015/2317/13 17124 1819 19115 25114 ask 7111 7113 8/12 2611 asking 17119 23120 asks 1111 Assault 2117 assaulted 21122 assigned 1815 assist 1815 Assistant 1/16 1018 22119 attention 7121 attorney [13] 1114 1116 713 1018 1018 22120 attorney's 11121 audio 319 3120 413 4/7 515 audio/video 3/9 3120 authorized 6119 beyond 13123 19123 2015 2112 21124 birth 815 both 317 318 3113 5125 616 6112 bound 1119 box 5/16 bring 10125 1111 bringing 1815 building 5110 business 11] 24123 bail 23117 23119 Bank 91131014 basically 518 be [35] because 1511615120 been 618 101714111 1613 16116 before [1 1110 6124 716 7115 7117 8117 1711 1718 17118 2614 behalf 2115 6114 6118 11121 13111 13112 1915 24118 being 8122 11124 20/12 2412 bene?t 4111 10114 BERNSTEIN [28] between 4121 10118 2016 2114 21125 beverages 1519 calendar 215 call 5111 5117 5120 camera 4113 4113 4115 5113 5/15 5115 can 2125 4114 4120 716 12116 can't 10119 caption 16120 carry 20118 21113 2214 case 10121 11161614 2019 cause 20113 20116 2117 2119 2213 causing 20123 21117 2219 certain 8118 12123 certainly 12115 Certi?ed 26118 chance 5112 charge 1312313125 charges 8122 Chris 312 citizen 19118 citizens 1314 City 119 1115 Class 11114 2018 Clark 1123 7121 client 2413 25120 coerced 14125 commitment 14115 communicate 24115 communicating 618 Company 21112 completely 12110 comprised 1313 concerning 17120 concert 2016 concurrent 9124 concurrently 9110 condition 1115 17113 1819 conditions 101131119 25110 conduct 2018 20113 2117 conference 3112 615 617 con?dential 20112 con?rming 21121 22113 confront 13110 connection 513 9125 10123 19113 consent 23119 consideration 18123 Conspiracy [10] 8123 8125 912 916 11124 1112514111 14112 2319 23110 constituting 2018 constitutional 12124 contact 24111 contempt 2519 contents 1717 continued 23117 continuing 23119 control 518 convicted 151241611 1613 conviction 13125 17115 17120 18111 18112 18125 convictions 14/10 corners 519 could 11111 1311815110 16121813 25117 - Counsel 3/13 6/1 616 6/12 26/4 Counselors 2618 count 8/22 9/3 11113 15/19 20/3 20125 21123 counts 6/22 8124 917 11/23 11125 14/12 19/25 23/10 COUNTY 1/1 111 1181111 13/4 21/3 22/16 court [24] 1/1 1111 1123 1125 213 214 2125 6124 7/22 9/16 9120 9125 1116 151121711917/1917/2218112 2311 23120 24/2 24/4 2416 26123 Court's 3122 6111 Courthouse 118 5/6 25/22 courtroom 4/3 4113 517 12/15 coverage 3120 Coyne 1123 Crime 9112 10/3 crimes 1114 criminal 25/9 drugs 1519 Data 9113 1014 date 8/5 20122 21/14 2216 Dateline 315 DAVID 1110 death 20117 20124 decided 1 916 decision 1218 12118 defendant [12] 116 1118 1123 16/22 17111 2015 20115 2113 21113 21120 2211 22112 Defendant's 3125 416 Defendants 20119 Degree [13] 8123 8125 913 917 9119 11125 1211 14112 14113 20110 2118 2319 23110 Department 17117 17122 described 10116 11110 1415 determined 1017 did [15] 11120 16115 1711 1714 1716 2017 20119 20121 2115 21114 21120 2211 2216 22112 22118 direct 5115 7121 directed 2513 discretion 3123 discuss 12/7 1716 discussed 18119 disposed 3117 disposition 10115 25110 distance 25123 distinct 18116 District 1114 1116 1018 22120 Division 17116 17121 DNA 9113 1014 do [37] Doctor 2121 document 16110 16119 16124 1717 documents 10125 doing 6112 13118 2119 dollars 9112 9113 9114 10/2 1013 1014 21115 2216 don't 518 7/13 doubt 13124 19124 2015 2112 21125 down 812 Dr [17] 2115 6114 6118 713 8111 10110 11118 11120 12114 151716110 17110 1 915 1 9111 22118 2317 2419 Dr. 16118 . Dr. Bernstein 16118 Drive 2114 each 8124 916 9110 15119 23113 earlier 3112 412 614 11111 eight 11114 either 2613 element 13/23 else 14121 15110 24118 2613 Empire 21112 ended 20111 engage 20112 enhanced 25114 enhancement 512 enter 6121 71411122 entered 6120 23114 entering 15115 15123 entitled 16119 ESQ 111411161120 even 10119 17111 go 24121 God 7/25 going [16] 3117 4/5 416 4114 5111 5113 5114 7/10 7/11 8111 10120 10122 12114 17118 25113 25120 gone 14110 2011 good 2/1 2110 2111 2112 2121 2122 3/7 6116 2619 Grand 9118 Graniks 818 Granted 25125 gratitude 6111 greater 1612 Gribeluk 2016 20111 20121 20121 2115 21115 2212 2217 guilt 11141511419116 guilty [25] 6120 6122 7/5 7/9 8121 911 9118 11122 1218 12116 12119 12122 1413 141914111 14121 151215151511515/20 15121 171121811619114 2318 eventually 20122 21116 2217 ever 12117 every 13122 22123 everybody 4115 612 everyone 2/1 everything 8113 1019 11117 22119 2311 evidence 13110 13111 exercise 13117 explained 17125 express 6111 fact 12118 15120 21122 factual 1 9122 far 1011011118 faxed 318 Fee 9112 9113 1013 1014 fees 11116 felony 11114 15125 1611 1613 2019 few 14116 ?fteen 915 Fifth 8124 8125 916 11123 1211 14113 19/25 23110 ?fty 9114 1014 ?ling 9115 ?nal 18113 ?nd 23112 2511 Firm 2113 had 3/11 614 6181216 14110 1613 19/23 1 9125 hallways 515 hand 7/20 812 happened 221152311 happening 15111 happens 519 hard[1] 25111 has 611810171111414/1914/25 1514 16116 2311 2416 have [36] he 6118 17112 20121 25121 25122 hear 8113 1112022118 heard 1117 help 7125 here [11] 212 2124 5113 5116 619 1116 14116 15111 1512419112 2311 higher 17119 17122 18111 him 7/17 2415 his 6119 holding 16118 home 24123 HON 1110 Honor [38] hours 1518 however 12122 1413 17114 hundred 9112 1012 21115 2216 ?rst 4124 6111 8122 11113 11123 19124 ?ve 3113 914 9113101311115 21115 21123 2216 ?ash 512 following 415 4123 follows 912 force 12116 forced 14125 forth 1 9122 found 14111 24122 four 5191518 freely 15115 full 6123 6125 fully 1716 18119 further 8117 1418 20125 21119 furtherance 1913 future i2] 1611 19/14 get 14121 1511 151525111 give 5112 7116 20121 21114 2216 25113 given 1514 giving 7/8 12123 18110 I'm 14123 identify 311 immediately 2513 imposed 10118 incarceration 914 918 9122 includes 4123 including 1113 19/6 indeterminate 914 9122 indicated 411 4111 indictment [14] 113 216 5123 6121 6123 6124 7/5 11113 1112416120 1911 19/25 2014 2111 individual 20111 22113 inference 13117 informant 20112 20120 20123 2117 21117 21120 2213 2218 22112 information 9116 9120 1011 ingested 1518 injured 22114 injury 21110 21118 2213 2219 innocent 1319 Insurance 21112 intelligently 23/14 intended 19/23 intent 20/8 intentionally 2119 internet 24/17 interview 10124 interviewed 10/22 investigation 10121 investigator 21/11 115 1123 215 2/15 5/22 8/4 16122 is [41] issue 23/20 issues 17120 it [21] 3/15 3115 4/14 4114131315116 161121611316114161161611616116 1711 17/2 1714 1718 17125 18120 22122 24/22 25/12 - January 119 JEFFREY 1120 2113 John 21110 21118 21122 23121 Joseph 24112 judge 1/11 7/2 13/2 1619 20/2 22/17 2316 23118 jury 215 5116 1312 1313 1313 just 2125 7116 812 10115 14/5 14110 14116 17125 22120 keep 8/12 KELLER 315 315 4118 4119 Kelly 2016 20110 20120 2115 21115 2212 22/7 kindly 19121 23123 2413 knowingly 23113 known 9/16 Larceny 9118 last 618 late 1117 law 21131011711112 law-abiding 10/17 lawyer 25111 lead 10/17 leave 2513 Leslie 1125 26121 26122 Let 5125 6111 2416 Liberty 2114 life 10117 light 512 likely 25113 likewise 91231011 limited 4124 5116 1917 LLP 1119 lobby 516 location 24121 2513 long[1] 7112 loud 8113 lower 16123 315 matter 3116 5112 5/20 9117 9117 1217 19125 maximum 11112 11/14 may 815 19114 2017 23115 24115 24/17 24121 24122 me 6111 6119 714 7116 2318 meaning 25112 means 17118 18/20 2517 media 2124 4122 24117 medications 15/9 meet 20120 21120 22112 members 212 2123 mentioned 614 Michael 2214 2219 22114 23121 24112 [12] 1119 1120 2113 2114 2/18 3125 6/13 7115 1617 1913 23124 2616 MILMER 312 312 4117 mind 3119 minimum 10124 minutes 3113 14116 money 20121 20122 21116 Montebello 818 months 918 MORAN 1116 218 2111 1616 19/21 22116 2614 more 419 20116 morning [11] 2/1 2110 2111 2112 2121 2122 317 3112 3118 615 6117 motions 19/5 1917 Mr [14] 2111 2118 312 3125 4117 6113 7115 1616 1617 1913 22116 23123 2614 2616 Mr. 19121 .- Mr. Moran 19121 MS 315 4119 Ms. 4118 20/21 Ms. Gribeluk 20121 Ms. Keller 4118 much 7117 murder 2019 20114 must 716 10113 101171112 mutually 6110 mutually-agreeable 6110 my 2/16 3115 418 4123 5/7 7115 12/15 2516 25120 000 26111 oath 7/11 objecting 412 objection 416 2411 obtain 13124 occasions 25122 offer 8119 Office 1114 of?cer 10123 1111 officer?s 1112 offices 319 one [14] 118 1115 214 4112 5121 9122 10117 1118 1211617123 2013 20116 25118 2619 only 4112 4125 2516 open 2414 operator 5115 order [11] 4123 4124 1015 10114 10120 13124 14121 1511 1515 25118 25124 Orders 23121 2411 2417 2419 2517 25112 ordinarily 17110 other 516 9110 9124 14118 14/19 19115 others 1416 otherwise 512 23117 24123 out 4114 4121 20118 21113 2214 outlets 4/9 4122 outside 519 over 416 2218 own 13111 13112 Ma'am 314 made 14I15 14119 1915 1917 2415 Main 118 1115 make 213 2/24 8113 1218 12/19 19112 25117 2612 mandatory 9111 1012 manner 24116 matrimonial 25121 name 813 named 21110 nature 2519 NBC 316 near 2512 need 212 7117 negative 13117 negotiated 8/19 9/1 10115 11110 17113 18124 1914 25/10 new [13] 1/1 1/21/91/91/151/151/20 2/9 2115 819 16/21 2114 23120 news 313 419 nice 2117 8112 no [14] 1/3 51412116 13117141414122 14124 1513 15/6 15/13 2411 24111 2615 26/7 . not [11] 5/1 6120 1017 1117 1613 1813 1916 24115 24117 24121 2516 note 217 nothing 7124 noti?ed 3114 now [12] 418 5/14 61141011812115 16/11 16118 18/24 1914 24110 2516 25121 number 2/4 5121 paid 20122 21116 part 10121 parties 3116 5123 618 past 1 517 patience [1 612 pay 1016 pending 5120 1916 23122 people [17] 112 1113 215 218 5122 711 911516121 1711419123 2014 2111 21124 2314 23118 24122 2512 People's 3119 8118 23116 performance 20113 performed 201102118 permit 4/7 4112 511 person 2116 21110 21121 2212 persons 20116 PHILLIPS 1/19 2114 photography 514 physical 21110 21118 2213 2219 place 24123 placed 7111 Plan 21112 plea [10] 1/7 6/20 6121 8/18 11110 17113 1819 18124 1914 23113 plead 8121 9118 12/8 12/16 12/18 14121 1512 15/5 pleading 719 12/22 1413 15/20 18/16 pleads 17112 pleas [10] 6125 7/5 911 11122 1419 15115 1 5124 19113 2315 2318 please 2/7 311 7120 813 8112 16112 Point 1/20 2115 police 2116 pool 4115 portion 16124 position 3120 3125 23116 possibly 15/10 presence 6/5 present 1/22 2/16 4122 5/23 6/1 13/1 1 presented 13110 presentence 10/20 presently 8/7 press 212 presumed 1319 previously 6120 previously-entered 6120 Prison 11/15 probation 10123 1111 1112 proceed 8/17 proceeding 26/19 proceedings 3110 4/10 4125 5119 19/15 process 10122 prohibited 25/24 promised 14/20 proper 4121 prosecution 13122 2518 Protection 23/21 24/1 2418 25118 25124 prove 13122 19/23 20/4 21/2 21124 provide 23123 provided 12/11 1616 purpose 20123 21117 21121 22/8 22113 Put 8/2 16112161191711117115171241814 1818 18110 18115 18120 18125 25121 rights 7/7 12124 1311 1415 Robert 1123 ROCKLAND 111 118 1314 2113 22116 Route 1119 run 9/9 9124 8 subject 1612 2518 suf?cient 1216 Superior 9/16 9/20 9/25 suppression 19/8 surcharge 9111 1012 surcharges 11116 sure 8113 Susan 20117 20124 23122 24111 swear 7/23 uestions 7/12 7/16 1113 raise 7120 reached 619 read 1711 reads 16121 reason 7/14 reasonable 13124 19/24 2015 2112 21125 . Recall 5121 receive 10114 received 318 recommend 2314 reconsider 17120 record 3111 419 5122 5125 8/3 14/16 19/22 2416 26/18 recording 3121 413 417 513 5/5 recordings 319 re?ect 3111 5125 2416 remain 6/1 13116 Reporter 1125 26123 representation 12111 14/20 requesting 3/9 require 13122 24110 required 1015 requiring 17114 resolution 6110 resolved 3117 respect 3120 2013 20125 21123 22123 23116 respond 7/18 responding 7115 rest 3122 restitution 1015 1016 restricted 25123 result 6113 14/9 15/23 retains 17111 review 16112 16115 reviewed 18111 RICHARD 1116218 right [25] 2116 414 4120 7/20 8114 12115 said 6122 1019 11118 22120 same 3114 611 1011 111411116 2212 satisfaction 6123 711 satis?ed 71712110 satisfy 715 say 4110 8/14 scheduled 1116 school 24123 second [13] 511 5111 5117 5120 8/23 9/2 1112414112 17116 17122 2019 2118 2319 see 2117 seeking 19/7 selection 215 Senior 1116 1123 1125 26/23 sentence [19] 8/19 9/1 9/21 9/21 9/23 1011811111111121411514/1916/2 1711617121 18111 18113191123115 23122 25114 sentenced 913 9/7 sentences 919 separate 7/4 8122 18116 2417 series 7/12 serious 2119 21117 2213 2219 service 2415 services 12111 set 5112 19/21 she 17112 should 3111 show 10124 showing 16119 sign 16113 2414 signature 16123 signed 16116 1712 1718 2412 2417 24110 silent 13116 Similarly 21123 since 618 sir [25] 2125 314 4116 4117 8/15 8116 10111 10112 111911119 1214 1215 14/21 14/24 16123 17125 19/19 19/20 22125 24114 24120 2512 25111 25116 25119 six 9/8 so [12] 4113 6112 7125 10110 10123 1111813118 2119 23112 2413 24118 25111 social 24117 solemnly 7/23 sorry 14/23 South 118 1/15 2114 speak 7/15 7/17 speci?cally 18110 20115 Spindler 21111 21118 21122 23121 24112 stand 311 state 1/1 112 219 813 16121 2113 State's 11115 statements 19/12 States 19/19 step 217 Stephano 2214 22110 22114 23122 24112 Stony 1120 2115 Street 1181/15 table 16111 take 1812 taken 13118 Taking 17118 Telephone 24116 tell 5114 7/16 7123 10112 12115 tells 7/4 Temporary 2417 term 9/4 9/7 9/22 testify 13112 texting 24116 than 419 517 14/18 1612 17122 thank [17] 2119 314 3124 414 5117 5118 611 8/10 8116 1611416117 2012 23125 2612 26/5 26/7 2618 that [87] them 3114 23123 2414 24116 2517 then 7111 there [11] 212 2123 2125 418 5/4 7/12 9/11 1011 10113 1414 25122 therefore 18112 these 1114 15/15 19113 2419 24122 2516 25112 they 619 19115 2519 think 3112 third 514 8123 91191115 11115 11123 19/24 this [26] 3112 3116 3117 4110 5119 615 6124 7/5 7/10 1119 1217 1614 16124 1717 17113 17122 17124 1819 18123 1911 19/4 19/10 19125 2019 21113 25122 THOMAS 1114 those 6125 9/8 1118 11116 1311 14/5 2512 threatened 1511 three [14] 6125 7/4 8/21 9/9 9112 9123 91241012 10113 141915115 2111 2315 2512 through 25121 time 5119 619 7/17 9121 10125 1216 19/10 today 4110 1511215124 19113 2312 today's 4124 together 9/9 told 617 14/18 too 2120 transmissions 318 trial 1312 1318 14/4 14/10 2011 true 22122 26/18 truth 7124 7/24 7125 truthfully 1113 turned 22/7 twelve 1314 twenty 9113101311115 1518 21115 2216 twenty-?ve 9/13 1013 11115 21115 2216 twenty-four 1518 two 419 4111 10120 11125 14112 2319 2417 2419 unanimous 1315 under 7111 11/12 1911 19124 understand [26] 7/7 7/14 7118 8/18 12/20 12/24 13/6 13113 13119 13125 1416 14/8 15/11 15125 1714 17/24 18/6 181131811719/12 22/19 24/13 24119 24124 25/4 25114 understanding 3115 4/8 understood 1019 11/17 22125 United 19/19 unrelated 9/17 up [11] 217 3/1 5/12 718 8112 10/25 11111 1212316118 18110 20/11 upon 2415 used 19114 yet 1017 YORK [10] 1/1 11211911151120 219 2115 819 16121 21/4 you [161] you're[1] 1819 your [86] yours 1211912119 vourselle] 3/1 2511 verdict 1315 versus 215 5122 16122 very 7/12 10124 1114 25113 Victims? 9112 1013 video 319 3120 4/7 5/3 violate 1118 2517 25112 visual 412 voice 8112 voluntarilv 15116 18124 23/13 waive 17115 18120 18124 Waiver 1617 16112 16119 waiving 12123 1414 1818 18115 want 4/12 714 7/14 8113 8117 10112 1213 15117 2318 wanted 13112 1812 was [11] 6/7 20122 2116 21111 21116 21122 2217 22114 22114 23/13 2415 way 818 1511 we [13] 3122 4/1 412 5111 8117 16115 1919 23/6 23/15 23/20 23125 25117 2614 welcome?[1] 613 well 4121 81191014 13119 1416 25115 were 5120 6/9 1313 what [12] 3119 3124 415 5111 9116 1213 1411814118 15111 1511618119 2317 whatever 4121 When 25121 whenever 10118 1116 where 1015 16114 24122 25122 whether 12118 1916 24122 which [11] 5119 718 81241016 11112 11113 2117 2217 22115 2419 2517 who 419 4111 20111 2116 21111 22114 whoever 4114 whoever's 5113 whole 7124 whose 1314 will [21] 4115 511 514 5114 7/8 7116 913 917 9115 9118 9121 1015 12123 1414 1414 1419 15124 18113 19121 23/12 23/15 wish 2124 419 11122 withdraw 6/19 1914 19110 within 1517 25123 25124 26119 won't 1119 work 4114 4120 worked 25111 would [15] 1011 1313 1315 1318 1319 13115 13121 14119 1814 1919 2014 2111 21124 23/18 2611 written 16/7 1611 1 years 915 9123 11115 Yes [47] 1/10 1/14