Ever since his arrest for the notorious October 1979 murder of Rabbi David Okunov in Crown Heights, Carl Miller fought valiantly to clear his name. On the first day of April, retiring Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Guy Mangano, Jr. went out with a bang, overturning Miller’s 1980 conviction and dismissing the original indictment. 

Although obviously ecstatic, Miller says that the moment of victory was also bittersweet. “I was up all night thinking about my two aunts and four sisters who helped me fight my case, but are no longer here to see this day,” he told me on the morning of April 2. Along with his wife and son (now 48), Miller’s two living sisters and an array of other family members regularly attended the post-conviction hearing that started in January 2025 and continued across sporadic dates through early March of this year. 

Since 2010, approximately 50 Brooklyn murder convictions have been overturned, many spurred by the DA’s Conviction Review Unit (CRU). But as in Miller’s case, when the CRU declines to exonerate, a judge can order a hearing that may yield a reversal. The DA’s Appeals Bureau then fights tooth-and-nail to preserve the original guilty verdict.  

Miller’s conviction resulted from the testimony of Darryl Brown, a former friend of Miller, who turned 19 on the day of the murder. A few weeks later, Brown, then 16, claimed to have seen Miller gun down Okunov, providing a highly questionable description of the crime scene at the September 1980 trial that he repeated at the recent hearing. 

Two other witnesses to the shooting and immediate aftermath, Crown Heights residents Louis Fazio and Chanina Sperlin, furnished descriptions of a slender suspect that did not match Miller, who was then a boxer with a muscular build. Neither Fazio nor Sperlin picked Miller out of a police lineup. Fazio was originally slated to testify for the prosecution at the trial, but when he saw Miller in court, he said that Miller was not the culprit, leading Fazio (now deceased) to testify for the defense. 

Sperlin, then a teenager and now a powerful local Hasidic leader, told police that he saw a suspect running with Rabbi Okunov’s briefcase towards 565 Crown Street, where cops soon picked up Darryl Brown, who had been squatting there. Sperlin did not testify at the trial. Judge Mangano concluded his lengthy decision by highlighting the fact that the combination of Sperlin and Fazio’s non-identifications of Miller could have led the jury to reject Brown’s claims.

Mangano also highlighted Miller’s steadfast refusal to tell the parole board that he committed the murder, which resulted in three consecutive rejections. In 2010, Miller continued to deny guilt in his fourth appearance but succeeded in gaining parole. During 2022-2023, the Brooklyn CRU investigated the case (without interviewing Sperlin or Brown) but did not take action. Attorney James Henning thus initiated the recent court proceeding on Miller’s behalf. 

To say that it’s been a long road for Miller seems like just a bit of an understatement. The Indypendent was in the courtroom when the key figures took the stand over the past 14 months. Below are some highlights. 

Note: Unlike a criminal trial, in a post-conviction hearing, the defense presents its case first. A judge, not a jury, decides whether a contested conviction should stand. 

February 19, 2025: Howard Weiswasser (Miller’s defense counsel at 1980 trial)

Weiswasser, recently retired and in his mid-eighties, offered familiar greetings to fellow courthouse veteran Judge Mangano as he took the stand. By 1980, the court-appointed defense lawyer had already handled over 100 homicide cases. Asked by attorney Henning whether Miller’s trial was a “fairly big case” (i.e. lots of media coverage), Weiswasser replied “yes.” 

Weiswasser testified that the police viewed Darryl Brown as a suspect during their initial investigation. But the veteran attorney insisted that he had not received various damaging information about Miller’s accuser, including details regarding Brown’s self-incriminating statements to police and prior arrests. 

“I always thought that Carl did not commit this crime,” Weiswasser told the court. Afterward, Miller and his supporters were impressed by the veteran lawyer’s testimony. “I wish I could get back in the courtroom,” Weiswasser told me in the hallway, lamenting his retirement.

July 22, 2025: Darryl Brown 

Brown and Miller exchanged no pleasantries. At the outset, Henning asked if being a witness to Rabbi Okunov’s murder was “a memorable event” in his life, Brown replied, “I try not to let it be.” He clearly came to court with no interest in helping Miller clear his name. 

When Henning asked if he received a $1,000 reward offered in the case, Brown said “yes, from the Jewish community,” prompting snickers in the crowded courtroom. He said that the compensation came after the trial but then maintained that he did not remember who gave it to him, or whether it was in cash. “I really don’t recall how it went down,” Brown stated. 

Brown remembered specifics regarding where various friends lived in 1979 but claimed selective amnesia about the Okunov case. About the only clear detail that he provided about the rabbi’s slaying was that he saw Miller “shoot the Jew.” 

November 5, 2025: Rabbi Chanina Sperlin

Sperlin had been slated to testify since July, but his lawyer had not complied with subpoenas for his client to appear in court. Such brazen defiance angered Judge Mangano, causing him to initiate disciplinary action against the attorney. 

The missed court dates made it seem like Rabbi Sperlin did not want to get involved in the case, but when he came to court (with a new lawyer), Sperlin provided helpful testimony for Miller. He repeatedly vouched for the veracity of his statements to police and prosecutors during the investigation and run-up to the trial, which included his identification of someone other than Miller (or Brown) in a lineup. 

Rabbi Sperlin’s time on the stand was brief and devoid of much drama. But as a fellow reporter in the courtroom and I agreed, the soft-spoken Crown Heights power broker evoked Marlon Brando in The Godfather. 

January 8 & 14, 2026: Carl Miller

In post-conviction hearings, defendants are not required to testify on their own behalf. Doing so enables the DA’s team to grill the defendant regarding all statements made during the investigation, trial, and parole hearings. Miller and company took that gamble, knowing that the answer to the most important question—whether he ever confessed to killing Rabbi Okunov—had been the same since his arrest in late 1979.  

During Henning’s questioning, Miller was calm and forthright. In response to ADA Cassandra Pond’s cross-examination, he remained forthright but became irritated as Pond called attention to relatively minor discrepancies in his accounts over the years regarding the initial investigation. Pond made it seem like it was more important to know when Miller first learned that he was a suspect instead of whether he actually committed the crime. 

Pond similarly suggested that because Miller had untruthfully told the parole board that he never used marijuana, his refusal to admit guilt for the Okunov murder should not be credited. In trying to make Miller’s conviction stick, the DA’s team threw spaghetti at the wall. 

February 25, 2026: Hon. Barbara Newman (trial prosecutor) 

Note: Newman was the prosecution’s lone witness during the hearing. 

Now in her mid-80s, Newman claimed not to remember handling Miller’s trial, which seemed unconvincing given that it garnered extensive media coverage and the courtroom was quite raucous, with trial judge Sybil Kooper repeatedly admonishing Rabbi Okunov’s supporters to quiet down. 

It was also just a bit puzzling that Newman claimed not to be familiar with the term “homicide scratch,” referring to the DA’s investigation progress report. The term surfaced frequently throughout hearing testimony, used by both the lead NYPD detective and Newman’s deputy ADA, who handled Miller’s grand jury indictment. A few years after Miller’s conviction, Newman became a bureau chief in the Brooklyn DA’s office, then a judge handling criminal cases in Manhattan and later in the Bronx. “I miss the robe,” she told Judge Mangano while on the stand. 

March 3, 2026: Closing arguments 

Although he frequently snapped at Henning and co-counsel Finn Mayock throughout the hearing, Mangano seemed impressed by the duo’s cogent summation. After raising questions about Newman’s handling of the case, Henning emphasized that Brown testified during the hearing that he recalled “nothing” about the reward money. Henning concluded by reminding the judge that Miller had maintained his innocence at all times over the past 46-and-a-half years. 

ADA Pond stumbled at first before regaining her footing. She defended Newman’s actions and downplayed Brown’s “alleged credibility issues.” Miller, insisted Pond, had “intentionally” testified “falsely” during the hearing about his actions on October 25, 1979. And he “lied” to the parole board about drug use. Pond did not deny that Brown received post-trial reward money but asserted that the DA’s office was unaware of that fact.  

April 1, 2026: Mangano’s decision

In issuing a rare ruling of “actual innocence,” Mangano did not say much about Brown. But it is clear that he believed that Miller has been telling the truth since late 1979.

The Brooklyn DA’s office now has a 30-day window in which to decide whether to appeal Mangano’s decision.

The Indypendent is a New York City-based newspaper, website and weekly radio show. All of our work is made possible by readers like you. During this holiday season, please consider making a recurring or one-time donation today or subscribe to our monthly print edition and get every copy sent straight to your home.