Within 72 hours of the Rankin shooting:

• Police had a suspect in custody

• A show-up identification was conducted

• The eyewitness stated the man shown looked like the driver involved

Critically:

• The suspect identified was not Sam
• This alternative suspect was never meaningfully investigated
• The jury was never informed of this identification

This failure became the foundation of a misidentification that was later buried.

Approximately one year later, detectives Louis Garcello and William Morris generated a police report stating that the eyewitness had made a positive identification of Sam.

Key issues:

• The eyewitness had never previously identified Sam

• The identification occurred only after meetings with detectives

• The eyewitness’s description of the driver was not testified to until after those meetings

In January 1988, Sam was implicated in the murder of William May, a separate homicide later tried together with the Rankin case.

Witness Testimony

The prosecution relied almost entirely on testimony:

    •    Thomas Porter claimed he witnessed the May murder through a steel door

    •    Porter later recanted, stating under oath that:

    •    His grand jury testimony was fabricated

    •    His trial testimony was fabricated

    •    He was coerced by detectives

Another key prosecution witness admitted:

    •    He lied to the grand jury

    •    He falsely claimed he saw Sam shoot William May

    •    He later acknowledged he never witnessed the murder

•    A witness testified Sam waited in a black Mercedes-Benz

    •    Police property-clerk records showed the vehicle was in police impound

    •    This contradiction was never addressed by either side at trial

The jury convicted Sam of:

    •    The Rankin murder

    •    The William May murder

    •    Most remaining counts

Sam was sentenced to decades in prison.

Under Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, a Conviction Integrity Unit existed but produced minimal relief, overturning only one known wrongful conviction during that era.

After Kenneth Thompson was elected:

    •    He ran on a platform of reform

    •    The CIU was restructured and renamed the Conviction Review Unit (CRU)

    •    Old cases were reopened for investigation

Sam later learned his case was among those reopened.

Beginning around 2011, Sam was periodically informed that his case was “under review.”

For years, he was told:

    •    Witnesses were being interviewed

    •    The investigation was ongoing

No substantive progress was disclosed.

In February 2015, Keith Christmas—the key prosecution witness in both homicide cases—and his attorney offered to provide relevant information to the CRU regarding detectives Louis Scarcella and William Morris.

The CRU refused to interview him.

This refusal occurred before any court hearing and before Sam filed his successful post-conviction motion.

During this period:

    •    Sam was repeatedly told witnesses were being interviewed

    •    Christmas had already come forward and was turned away

    •    The Brooklyn DA’s Office, under Eric Gonzalez, refused to grant immunity

    •    Christmas was threatened with reincarceration if he changed testimony

Sam later concluded the review process was being slow-walked.

At the evidentiary hearing:

Keith Christmas testified that:

• His grand jury and trial testimony in two murder cases was fabricated

• The information came directly from detectives

• Detective Scarcella removed him from custody

• He was taken to restaurants, social outings, and allowed conjugal visits

• He was brought to crime scenes and told what to say

• He was given police reports to memorize

Detective Louis Scarcella claimed that:

• He had little recollection of the cases

• His deceased partner handled most of the investigations

He admitted to abusing judicial take-out orders by bringing incarcerated witnesses into the community for meals and sexual encounters.

Thomas Porter testified that:

• He met with the Brooklyn DA’s Office prior to the hearing

• He was asked closed-ended, leading questions

• Despite earlier sworn recantations, his prior statements had been coached

On June 14, 2022, after decades of litigation and advocacy:

    •    Sam’s convictions were vacated

    •    The court cited newly discovered evidence

    •    The ruling relied heavily on:

    •    Recantations of two key witnesses

    •    Evidence of detective misconduct

Sam was released from prison.

Following his release, Sam:

    •    Worked with at-risk youth

    •    Participated in school safety and anti-gun-violence efforts

    •    Volunteered with:

    •    TFK – Men for Kings and Queens

    •    Mel Kwan Janelle Anderson Foundation

    •    Mount Baptist Church food pantry

    •    Delivered food to elderly community members

He was not retried and committed no new crimes.

On April 9, 2025, the New York Appellate Division reinstated Sam’s convictions, ruling that:

    •    Detective Scarcella’s misconduct was not an issue at the original trial

    •    The Supreme Court did not credit Thomas Porter’s sworn statements

    •    Despite the trial court previously finding Porter unreliable, those findings were disregarded

Sam was returned to custody without a new trial.

Sam is currently incarcerated in an upstate New York prison while:

    •    Further appeals are pursued

    •    His legal team argues that:

    •    His exemplary conduct after release

    •    His community contributions

    •    And the extraordinary posture of this case warrant a stay of execution of judgment

Sam’s case has drawn widespread support from:

    •    Community advocates

    •    Faith leaders

    •    Wrongful-conviction supporters

Figures such as Brother Thomas and others who supported Sam after his release continue to advocate publicly against his reincarceration.

Supporters emphasize:

    •    The injustice of reinstating a vacated conviction

    •    The human cost of reversing freedom years later

    •    The urgent need for accountability