U.S. attorneys prosecuting the corruption case against James Botti said they have twice offered the Shelton developer a “resolution” to the case.
That’s according to a motion the U.S. government attorneys filed with the U.S. District Court in New Haven Tuesday.
The motion does not go into detail of any kind regarding the resolutions. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to elaborate.
Meanwhile, jury selection for the second Botti federal trial is scheduled to start Feb. 24.
Botti, a Shelton developer, is facing a second federal trial for charges stemming from a November 2008 federal indictment that claims he bribed public officials in Shelton to get construction projects approved.
Botti was found guilty of structuring and conspiracy to structure payments during his first trial in November. He was acquitted of charges he lied to an IRS agent.
Botti’s attorney, William Dow, has filed motions for a new trial.
Now, more than a month before the jury selection for the second trial will start, the U.S. attorneys want Botti to say whether he’ll accept their offer.
In Tuesday’s motion, prosecutors Richard Schechter and Rahul Kale urged U.S. District Judge Charles Haight to schedule a hearing where Botti would have to formally accept or deny the government’s offer.
Two letters were sent to Botti’s attorney, the motion states, but Schechter and Kale have not heard back from Dow.
Dow was not immediately available for comment Tuesday evening.
“The government respectfully requests a status conference with the court so that [defendant’s] position can be clearly set forth on the record,” the motion reads.
Tuesday’s motion also asks Judge Haight to clearly outline a schedule for all pre-trial motions to be filed to avoid later complaints by Botti’s attorney that not enough time was given to file motions.
“The Government believes that the defendant should not wait to the eve of the second trial to file such motions and then later be heard to complain that the Court did not undertake the proper balancing to evaluate the contested evidence,” the government’s motion states.
