In his closing remarks Wednesday afternoon, attorney William Dow III tried to cast doubt on the government’s case against his client, James Botti.
Dow picked apart pieces of the government’s case, questioning the timing of events, the lack of evidence — and the credibility of witnesses who received immunity in return for their testimony.
He repeated his argument that Botti tends to exaggerate, so statements he made can’t be believed.
Botti is accused of bribing Mayor Mark A. Lauretti in exchange for the mayor’s influence on development projects in Shelton.
Whether that’s true is all a matter of perspective, Dow told the jury.
Perspective
For example, was the work Botti did on Lauretti’s home in 2002 a favor to get the mayor in his pocket — as the government alleges — or was Lauretti simply slow to pay?
Lauretti paid for the work in 2004, Dow argued, after Botti sent him bills.
(The government argues that the payment came as a result of the Gov. John Rowland scandal that erupted at the end of 2003. Read closing remarks from U.S. attorneys here.)
Shelton is a town where people do each other favors, Dow said. But the government lacks an understanding of the territory, he said.
“The government’s case is fatally flawed,” Dow said. “And part of that flaw is a lack of perspective.”
Witnesses Questioned
Dow also questioned the credibility of the government’s key witness, Andre Czaplinski, who testified that Botti told him he bribed the mayor with $50,000 to get approval on his 828 Bridgeport Ave. project.
Dow said the timeline of events Czaplinski gave was not solid.
“Why would it make sense that the bribe to the mayor took place before anything (on the project) happened,” Dow asked. “It doesn’t fit together, does it? It really doesn’t fit together.”
Dow also questioned the credibility of government witness Richard Schultz, the city’s planning and zoning administrator, because he admitted he “lied” to the grand jury during his testimony.
Schultz said he told the grand jury he hadn’t mentioned being called to the grand jury, when in fact he had told his brother about it.
Schultz also admitted during his testimony that he held back information about his relationship with the mayor when he testified at a local ethics committee hearing.
Conspiracy?
Dow also questioned whether there was any conspiracy between Lauretti and Botti — pointing out to the jury that “there’s only one guy sitting in this courtroom.”
“And so, while it may take two to tango, it doesn’t take two to be charged,” Dow said.
Lauretti has not been charged with any crime, and has denied any wrongdoing.
And if Botti bribed Lauretti with $50,000, as Czaplinski testified Botti told him, why didn’t FBI agents check Lauretti’s bank records, Dow asked.
“Maybe then you can find out if this is corroborated, or if it’s B.S.” Dow said.
Dow continued his defense of Lauretti along with Botti, saying it’s not a crime for a mayor to weigh in on development projects. Several witnesses testified that Lauretti weighs in on many projects proposed in town — and doesn’t always get his way.
“You can’t have a one-man conspiracy,” Dow said. “There’s no evidence of Lauretti doing anything that’s consistent with him being involved in any conspiracy.”
