Attorneys for the U.S. government and Shelton developer James Botti met Thursday to debate what witnesses and evidence can be admitted to Botti’s upcoming federal trial, scheduled for March 8.
The hearing gives a glimpse at some of the strategies each side wants to use at trial.
Judge Charles S. Haight didn’t make any decisions Thursday, but said he would issue a “very prompt ruling,” on the motions and follow up with more detailed reasoning afterward.
Botti has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the citizens of Shelton, bribery of a public official and mail fraud.
U.S. attorneys claim Botti offered gifts and money to public officials in Shelton in order to get development projects approved.
Witnesses
Botti’s attorney, William Dow III, wants to call character witnesses to testify to Botti’s tendency to exaggerate the truth — a defense against wiretappings the government has of Botti allegedly admitting he was involved in the criminal activity. (Read more about the defense strategy here.)
Both sides also debated whether to allow Dominick Thomas, Botti’s former attorney, to appear as a witness and a possible consultant for the defense.
Dow stated that because Thomas is heavily involved with Shelton, he could “bring so much to the table” as a consultant.
Dow said he also wants Thomas to testify about the way planning and zoning laws were implemented in Shelton.
The U.S. attorneys called Thomas a “very problematic witness” because at one time or another, he represented many of the witnesses appearing at the trial.
They were concerned about having Thomas present in the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony.
“A number of witnesses are going to be presented with the fact that their attorney is whispering in Dow’s ear,” said U.S. attorney Rahul Kale. “It will corrupt the process.”
Kale said the U.S. attorneys would not object to Thomas being either a witness or a consultant — but did not support him being allowed to do both.
Other Evidence
In addition to wiretaps and recordings from planning and zoning meetings where Botti’s proposals were discussed, the government has said it wants to enter evidence from the previous trial against Botti.
In November, Botti was convicted of structuring and conspiracy to structure cash deposits, which means he deposited money in chunks just under $10,000 to avoid detection from the IRS.
Prosecutors said the same evidence used to convict Botti of structuring was relevant to this trial because it is “part of his scheme to defraud,” and helps establish there was cash available to make bribes.
Dow argued Thursday that using that evidence would essentially be “piling on,” and used to essentially make Botti look bad to the jury.
“To throw that into the mix, the table will be tilted,” Dow said, “I think unfavorably so.”
The structuring charges were separated from the corruption charges before the first trial after a similar argument from Dow.Dow has also indicated in motions that he wants to enter evidence that “Public Official #1” paid for work done at his home. (Read background on that issue in the New Haven Register.)
No Turning Back
The U.S. attorneys also reminded Botti that if he has any concerns about Judge Haight’s fairness for the upcoming trial, he should raise the issue now.
The reminder came in the form of a letter and a discussion during the hearing. It was in response to previous comments Haight made urging Botti and the government to work out a settlement in the case to avoid a longer jail sentence.
“The government has the perception of the possibility it might later be said that this court, I, had somehow prejudiced the outcome of this trial and was somehow not ina position to conduct a fair trial,” Haight said Thursday. “I … certainly did not intend to indicate any prejudice on my part, because I don’t have any.”
Dow said no motion has been filed on the issue because he feels Judge Haight has been fair, as he indicated following the first trial.
“We are satisfied and we make no claims whatsoever of any unfairness,” Dow said. “We’re prepared to go forward with your honor presiding.”
