Shelton developer James Botti exaggerates and has outrageous buying habits.
That’s the gist of defense testimony in Botti’s federal corruption trial, underway at U.S. District Court in New Haven.
Botti’s attorney, WIlliam Dow III, presented four witnesses Monday.
Three of them testified to Botti’s “bombastic” nature — the defense’s strategy to counter government testimony from witnesses who claim Botti boasted about favors and bribes given to public officials in Shelton.
Botti is accused of bribing Mayor Mark A. Lauretti in return for influence getting his development projects approved. Lauretti has not been charged with any crime.
“He’s a bull****er,” said David McGovern, a car salesman who has often dealt with Botti. “He’ll bull**** about things.”
“Mr. Wannabe?”
Dow asked the witnesses to talk about Botti’s nature, prompting them by asking if Botti “wants to be the center of attention,” or is “Mr. Wannabe.”
“He can exaggerate,” Shelton Fire Marshal James Tortora said. “He can tell a story.”
“He exaggerates a lot,” said friend Richard Wales, who installed security alarm systems at several of Botti’s buildings. “He has a big problem with that.”
But on cross examination of the witnesses, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rahul Kale questioned whether Botti had ever told these witnesses about gifts or favors he gave to public officials, pointing out that he chose people especially close to him to confide the details in.
“Did he ever tell you about being involved in criminal activity?” Kale asked McGovern.
“No,” McGovern replied.
“Did he ever tell you he worked on Mark Lauretti’s house?” Kale asked.
“No,” McGovern answered.
Elliot Wilson Favors?
Dow brought up Botti’s buying habits to counter earlier testimony about how Botti traded in a mason truck and Shelton building official Elliot Wilson bought it for about $4,500 less than its worth. Botti took a loss on the deal.
McGovern called Botti’s buying patterns “outrageous.”
“He buys things to have them, he wants the best things,” McGovern testified.
Dow also brought up a window that Botti gave to Wilson.
Although other witnesses testified about the gift before, Tortora elaborated on their testimony by describing the condition of the window. Tortora is Wilson’s neighbor and went to Wilson’s house before the window was installed.
“The window was broken,” Tortora said.
It would have been thrown out if Botti didn’t give it to Wilson, Tortora testified.
Wilson has already pleaded guilty to lying to the federal grand jury about receiving gifts from developers. He will be sentenced in April.
Dominick Thomas Appears
Botti’s former land-use attorney Dominick Thomas testified at the end of the day Monday, after the jury had already been sent home.
His testimony dealt specifically with an interview the feds had with Botti on June 19, 2007, during which FBI agents revealed the evidence they had against Botti and asked him if he wanted to cooperate in their larger investigation of alleged corruption in Shelton.
The interview has come up twice in government testimony, but Dow last week asked Judge Charles Haight to strike the details from the official record.
At question is whether the interview can legally be considered a “plea agreement” interview, which would render its contents prohibited in testimony against Botti.
Haight previously ruled that FBI agents could testify about that meeting, but Monday he allowed Dow to call Thomas to elaborate on his understanding of the June 2007 meeting — for the record.
“I understand that when they want cooperation, they want you to enter a plea,” Thomas said. “So I thought this was a plea bargain.”
But Botti decided not to cooperate with the feds.
Trial Schedule
Dow is expected to call two more witnesses Tuesday morning.
Judge Haight said closing statements in the case would likely take place Wednesday morning.
Haight said he would then likely give the jury its charge — that is lay out the legal groundwork for them to make their deliberations — on Thursday morning.
The charge takes more than an hour, and the jury would presumably begin deliberations after that. There is no time limit for the jury to make a decision by, so it’s not clear when a verdict will be reached in the case.
