THE MURDER OF FELIX EMMANUEL<\/p>\n
On August 29, 1993, at about 12:30 am, one Felix Emmanuel (Manny), 23 and six feet tall, was walking on Amsterdam Avenue, between 136th and 135th streets.\u00a0 Someone appeared behind him and fired a single shot that entered his head at the right temple, traveled downward and to the left, and exited through the left occipital lobe at the bottom of the skull.\u00a0 He collapsed on the street by a bus stop across the street in front of 1532 Amsterdam Avenue. The gunman fled.\u00a0A large crowd gathered.\u00a0The police canvass of the area turned up no witnesses.\u00a0There were no leads.\u00a0It was not an uncommon event.\u00a0Manny was known to the police as a drug dealer who had at least one open criminal case where he was awaiting sentencing.<\/p>\n
When that shot was fired, 24-year-old Harry Ruiz was in his fifth-floor apartment at 504 West 135th Street, with his mother, sister, and sister-in-law\u2014all of whom later testified that he was home at the time of the killing. All of them heard the shot.\u00a0As people started congregating at the location, Harry went outside to see what had transpired. He was noticeably short for a man\u20144\u201911\u201d or 5 feet.\u00a0His nickname on the street was \u201cLittle Harry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Once he was named as a suspect, the respective height of the victim and Harry Ruiz, in conjunction with the bullet path, should have posed a major issue for the police and prosecutors.\u00a0It was undisputed that Manny was walking when he was shot, and that the gunman, on foot, came up behind him.\u00a0It would have been extremely difficult for a five-foot tall assassin to raise the firearm sufficiently high that a bullet could enter at the right temple of six-foot Manny, proceeding downward; that is, the gun must have been significantly higher than Manny\u2019s temple to descend on the trajectory indicated by the medical examiner.\u00a0While not beyond all physical possibility, it was wildly implausible.\u00a0 Moreover, a five-foot tall gunman could far more easily fire a shot into the back of Manny\u2019s head that would enter at the base of the skull and exit in an upward trajectory.<\/p>\n
There was neither forensic evidence nor a motive linking Harry Ruiz to the crime.<\/p>\n
Witness \u201cAndrea\u201d was thirteen years old when the shooting took place.\u00a0She lived in a small apartment on at West 134th Street, with her mother, who was unemployed addicted to drugs.\u00a0It was a precarious existence, surrounded by narcotics dealers and violence.\u00a0Her mother allowed many of the \u201cguys from 135th street\u201d (as they were referred to by various people) to regularly come over to sell or give her drugs or just hang out and get high.\u00a0 Andrea was a very good friend of Manny.\u00a0 She knew Harry from the neighborhood.<\/p>\n
On September 2, 1993, at 3:00 am, Andrea\u2019s mother called the police, claiming that she had been awakened by someone banging on their door at 3:00 am, demanding to be let in.\u00a0 She told police that there were more of them entering the building and still more in the hallway.\u00a0 She claimed that it had something to do with her daughter witnessing Manny\u2019s murder\u2014the first mention of any witness in the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The police arrived and did not find any evidence of criminal activity.\u00a0 They detained and searched four of the young men who were hanging out in front of the building; none were armed and all apparently explained their presence to the satisfaction of the police. They were released without charges.\u00a0 The claim that Andrea had witnessed a murder a few days earlier received much more attention.<\/p>\n
Andrea was immediately interviewed by the police. She told the police that she was playing with her friend, running toward West 135th Street, where they waited for another friend. Andrea said she heard one shot and saw Harry Ruiz running behind her, holding a black pistol.\u00a0She watched as he entered 509 West 135th Street. \u00a0She signed a statement to that effect.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/1000022899-472x1024.jpg\")
Ruiz speaks to a reporter after his exoneration on April 27, 2026 (photo credit: Ted Hamm).<\/p>\n
Andrea claimed the group who attempted to effect entry into her apartment were friends of Harry Ruiz and that they were there to intimidate her from testifying against Harry.\u00a0 She said that is what motivated her to speak with the police.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
A few hours later, Andrea was interviewed by detectives. Her evolving accounts of what she saw, where she was, where she went after the shooting, her relationship with Manny, and the various threats she claims to have perceived, differed from interview to interview, differed from her testimony at trial, differed from physical evidence, and differed from the account she later provided to DA Bragg\u2019s team.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Andrea was the only witness who identified Harry Ruiz. Other people who saw the alleged gunman fleeing did not identify him. Her identification was not corroborated by either of the two young women she was with that night. Harry did not confess.\u00a0 There was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime.\u00a0 There was no evidence of any motive.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ruiz was not arrested until June 9, 1994, over nine months later. It remains unclear what was responsible for the delay, although police reports generated during the time between Andrea identifying Harry Ruiz and the latter\u2019s arrest demonstrate that detectives were still looking for more evidence. The trial of Ruiz began on November 7, 1994, before the Hon. Alfred B. Kleiman.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
ANDREA\u2019S TRIAL TESTIMONY\u00a0<\/p>\n
Andrea\u2019s appearance on the witness stand did not start off well for the prosecution.\u00a0 After providing a brief biography, she claimed that she knew Harry Ruiz for a year and saw him \u201cseveral times.\u201d\u00a0 She quickly changed that, under the guidance of the prosecutor and Judge Kleiman, to twice a week.\u00a0 When asked to identify Ruiz, she pointed to someone in the rear of the courtroom.\u00a0 When confronted over this, she then claimed that person \u201clooks like Harry\u201d and then proceeded to identify Ruiz, who was seated at his defense counsel\u2019s table.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Andrea stated that on August 28, 1993, she and her two girlfriends went to a birthday on West 164th and St. Nicholas.\u00a0 Andrea said they remained at the party until \u201caround 2:30,\u201d which she quickly changed to 12:30, then took the subway and exited at 137th Street and Broadway.\u00a0 The trio then walked up 136th Street toward Amsterdam.\u00a0 She then saw Manny on 136th Street \u201cwalking down the block.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
While running down Amsterdam Avenue with one of her friends, Andrea said, she turned back \u201cand seen Harry shoot Manny,\u201d from a distance of 60 feet away.\u00a0 She did not see where Harry had come from but was only a couple of feet from Manny. Harry, she said, took the gun out of his waistband and shot Manny in the left temple, before the trial court asked her if she remembered whether it was left or right, to which she stated that she did not remember.\u00a0 She was clear that the shooter did not hold the gun above his head.\u00a0 Andrea stated that when Harry put the gun to Manny\u2019s head, Manny moved slightly backward \u201cin a jerking motion.\u201d\u00a0 However, she later agreed with the prosecutor who asked \u201c[a]t the time you heard the shot, you indicated that Manny jerked his head back.\u201d\u00a0 She then claimed she saw Harry turn the corner of 135th Street.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Andrea testified that she did not tell anyone about what she had seen\u2014not her two close friends who were with her that night and not even her mother.\u00a0 She did not go to the police until \u201cthe guys from 135th Street came to my house knocking on my door.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Based on Andrea\u2019s testimony, Harry Ruiz was convicted.\u00a0 At sentencing he repeatedly swore to his innocence.\u00a0 After the judge imposed the maximum term of 25 years to life, his last words were \u201cYour Honor, I\u2019m innocent.\u201d\u00a0 To which the court replied, \u201cGo in, sir, you have been found guilty\u201d before turning to a drug case.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ruiz engaged in extensive post-conviction litigation, all of which was vigorously opposed by the DA\u2019s office. In his first appearance before the parole board, Harry maintained his innocence\u2014and succeeded, gaining release in June 2019. In late 2023, he was discharged from parole due to his exemplary record of compliance and community re-integration.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
CRACKS EMERGE IN THE CASE<\/p>\n
While Ruiz challenged his conviction, the DA\u2019s office learned of new and credible evidence which, while stopping short of completely exonerating Ruiz, cast substantial doubt on his guilt and the testimony of the only eyewitness.\u00a0 They then buried it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
On May 3, 2000, a major narcotics trafficker, \u201cJose\u201d was charged in the Southern District of New York with a decade-long conspiracy to distribute narcotics.\u00a0 One \u201covert act\u201d that was part of that conspiracy alleged that Jose in August 1993 \u201cpaid another individual in the vicinity of 180th Street and Broadway to murder Felix Emmanuel in furtherance of the defendant\u2019s drug distribution organization.\u201d\u00a0 Under the federal sentencing guidelines, Jose was looking at life without parole.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jose wanted Manny killed because he was stealing from him.<\/p>\n
This was the first time that Jose\u2019s name came up with respect to Manny\u2019s murder.\u00a0 Jose later pleaded guilty and stated, as part of the plea negotiation, that he had paid someone to kill Manny because Manny was stealing from him.\u00a0 Over the next three and a half years, Jose fully cooperated with the federal authorities, providing everything he knew. Jose informed federal authorities that the person he had paid to commit the murder was known to him as \u201cShorty,\u201d and crucially, that \u201cShorty\u201d was not Harry Ruiz. But he always disclaimed any personal knowledge of who actually pulled the trigger\u2014only that someone who was not Ruiz was hired to commit the murder.\u00a0 When Jose was sentenced on December 3, 2003, the judge noted that he was \u201ccompletely truthful and that the testimony and information you gave was complete and reliable.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jose\u2019s motivation for the murder was simple\u2014Manny was stealing from him.\u00a0 Specifically, Jose averred that he owned the drug spot at 139th and Amsterdam and Manny worked for him.\u00a0 One of Manny\u2019s jobs was to take care of a safehouse where drugs, money, and weapons were stored.\u00a0 In the fall of 1992, the safehouse was burglarized and $150,000 in cash, three kilograms of cocaine, and several handguns were stolen. Jose believed that Manny had participated in the burglary.\u00a0 Moreover, Manny was becoming hostile, threatening other workers, starting fights, and scaring away customers.\u00a0<\/p>\n
At some point after Jose\u2019s arrest, the murder information he provided ended up in the hands of the Manhattan DA\u2019s office. ADA John Dormin interviewed him in June 2002.\u00a0 ADA Dormin took largely unintelligible notes, but Jose, a cooperating federal witness whose pending sentence depended upon his total truthful cooperation, presumably gave the same account to Dormin as he had been giving consistently to others. The DA\u2019s office did not disclose the fact of this interview, or the notes, to Ruiz\u2019s legal team until the reinvestigation by Bragg\u2019s Post-Conviction Justice Unit\u2019s (PCJU) that started in early 2024.\u00a0<\/p>\n
THINGS FALL APART<\/p>\n
The PCJU reinvestigation was extensive and exhaustive. The team re-interviewed everyone who would speak to them, interviewed persons that had never been questioned, located and interviewed new witnesses, and endeavored to actually find the real \u201cShorty.\u201d\u00a0 While that latter effort failed, the unit uncovered more than enough new evidence to exonerate Harry Ruiz.<\/p>\n
In the course of the re-investigation, the PCJU made substantial disclosures of documents that would have seriously undermined Andrea\u2019s testimony.\u00a0 Ruiz\u2019s trial counsel was interviewed and he was clear that he never received these documents. There is every reason to trust this account\u2014defense counsel was exceptionally zealous and competent in his representation, both before and after the conviction.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The documents revealed a fifteen-year relationship between Andrea and the DA\u2019s office, with the latter helping to provide Andrea with everything from cash and apartments to legal assistance cancelling debts.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
In June 1994, the DA\u2019s witness protection staffers attempted to expedite Andrea\u2019s mother\u2019s NYCHA application, claiming that her apartment had been \u201cconsumed by a fire,\u201d that the \u201cprimary suspects\u201d are friends of the defendant, and that the \u201cdefendant has gone through great lengths to harm the witness.\u201d\u00a0 Indeed, Andrea herself would insist that Harry\u2019s friends had started a fire in her apartment by throwing a Molotov cocktail that burned up the apartment.<\/p>\n
The DA\u2019s office helped Andrea with cash, apartments and legal assistance cancelling debts.<\/p>\n
In fact, as other documents released by the PCJU demonstrated, the apartment had been abandoned by Andrea and her mother for a month before the fire broke out.\u00a0 It was used as a crack den.\u00a0 The door had remained unlocked.\u00a0 The fire was a surface fire that started on a couch and the most likely cause was accident.\u00a0 It was easily extinguished. Thus, nothing in the letter was true.\u00a0 The apartment had not been \u201cconsumed,\u201d it was not labelled an arson, and there were no \u201cprimary suspects\u201d or suspects at all.\u00a0 Not only was the DA\u2019s office providing secret assistance to Andrea\u2014they were lying to NYCHA about it.<\/p>\n
During the period of trial through sentencing (mid-fall 1994 through March 1995) the DA\u2019s office then made arrangements for Andrea and her mother family to live in a Holiday Inn at Lafayette Street, paying out over $700 per week and totaling about $13,000. These were substantially better quarters than their old $980-per-month apartment, which Andrea\u2019s mother struggled to pay.<\/p>\n
Since the family was no longer living in the neighborhood, Andrea\u2019s mother could not continue to do whatever it was she had been doing to take care of her living expenses, not the least of which was feeding her drug addiction. The DA\u2019s office turned on a cash spigot.\u00a0 The trial prosecutor authorized at least $5,000 in cash payments for \u201cliving expenses\u201d between November 1, 1994 and June 5, 1995. \u00a0 It does not appear that A or her mother submitted any receipts justifying such expenditures.\u00a0 Rather, the payments seemed to represent a $210 weekly stipend that was increased to $250 in March of 1995.\u00a0 This was an exceptionally large amount of money being handed over to an unemployed drug addict.<\/p>\n
The DA\u2019s office remained there for all of Andrea\u2019s needs.\u00a0 On May 8, 2002, eight years after Harry Ruiz had been shipped off to prison, the office wrote to the clerk of the Civil Court in Manhattan, with respect to Andrea\u2019s desire to change her name.\u00a0 The DA\u2019s office asserted, again baselessly, that as \u201ca result of her cooperation with the prosecution of this case, Andrea\u2019s safety is at risk.\u00a0 Our office is assisting her with safety planning.\u201d\u00a0 The letter requested the court waive fees and expenses for the name change, keep the procedure confidential, and not publish the name change, \u201cfor her safety\u201d (emphasis original).\u00a0 There are no records of what other \u201csafety planning\u201d benefits were provided.\u00a0 Thus, the DA\u2019s office lied to a court.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Finally, in 2009, Sean Gardiner, a distinguished former reporter at Newsday then working as a defense investigator for my law firm, reached out to Andrea.\u00a0 He met with her then-husband, who informed Gardiner that she would like to come forward and \u201cdo the right thing,\u201d but was afraid of the DA\u2019s office.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/p>\n
This recap does not do full justice to the work of the PCJU, and all the interviews DA Bragg\u2019s team (led by ADAs Terri Rosenblatt and Shalena Howard) conducted and leads they followed. That body of work, as a whole, paints a terrifying picture of life in a few blocks of Manhattan in 1993\u2014Puerto Rican drug dealers on West 135th and Dominican dealers on West 139th.\u00a0 Families were devastated by drugs and children were pretty much left to fend for themselves in an unspeakably violent environment.\u00a0 The police were generally indifferent to any crimes short of murder\u2014even then, their m.o. was to simply make an arrest and move on to the next case.\u00a0 And the DA\u2019s office was an instrument of mass incarceration, not justice.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, let\u2019s consider the words of lead Detective Adrian Jones. Jones did not recall much about the case but stated one thing quite clearly: \u201cIf I locked him up, he did it.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
And that is how, and why, wrongful convictions happen.<\/p>\n
The Indypendent\u00a0is a New York City-based\u00a0newspaper<\/a>,\u00a0website and\u00a0weekly\u00a0radio show<\/a>. All of our work is\u00a0made possible by\u00a0readers like you. During this holiday season, please consider making\u00a0a\u00a0recurring or one-time\u00a0donation<\/a>\u00a0today or\u00a0subscribe<\/a>\u00a0to our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your home.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Note: The following is a condensed version of a recent court filing connected to the decision by Manhattan…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":212708,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[75,84,83,9,24,63],"class_list":["post-212707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-manhattan","tag-manhattan","tag-manhattan-headlines","tag-manhattan-news","tag-new-york","tag-new-york-city","tag-nyc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212707\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/212708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}