• At a pretrial hearing, lawyers for Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. and others fail to win dismissal of bribery and bribery-conspiracy charges.
BY TRACY BRETON
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE
-- A U.S. District Court judge yesterday denied defense motions to dismiss bribery and bribery-conspiracy charges that allege that Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. and others took bribes in exchange for towing contracts and city jobs.
In a pretrial hearing in the case that the government has dubbed Operation Plunder Dome, lawyers for the mayor and his co-defendants argued that the court should dismiss 5 of the 30 counts in the 97-page indictment -- before the case goes to trial -- for alleged defects in the wording of the counts.
They also argued that the federal bribery and bribery-conspiracy statutes had been unconstitutionally applied in this case, and that the federal government lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the defendants for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery.
"This is a kitchen-sink indictment. Everything in the world was thrown at them in this indictment," John Tarantino, lawyer for Cianci's chief of staff, Artin H. Coloian, argued before Chief U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres.
A key argument that the defendants made was that the government's indictment failed to allege a link or connection between alleged bribes paid for city jobs -- a Department of Planning and Development post for Christopher J. Ise, and a job on the police force for Joseph Maggiacomo III -- and federal funds received by the city and the two city departments in question.
The defendants also argued that the wording of the charges in the indictment was flawed because there was no allegation that either Maggaciamo or Ise had paid for a job for which bonafide work was not to be performed. (Ise got a city planning job; Maggiacomo dropped out of the Providence Police Training Academy and did not become a police officer.)
Defendants Coloian and auto-body shop owner Richard E. Autiello also argued that the government had improperly applied the federal bribery statute to them.
Torres rejected those arguments, citing case law, extensive memoranda of law submitted by the lawyers to him -- memoranda which were not in the public court record as of the time court closed yesterday -- and oral arguments made by the lawyers.
The judge conceded that the defense lawyers had raised legitimate constitutional concerns, but said that it would be "premature" for the court to decide them before the trial.
"What's before the court are motions to dismiss that challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, not the sufficiency of the evidence," the judge said, adding that "the [U.S.] Supreme Court says an indictment should not be dismissed based on guesses on what the government could or could not prove at trial."
However, at the government's request, Torres did dismiss one count, which alleged that Cianci, former top aide Frank E. Corrente, and Autiello had solicited about $250,000 in campaign contributions to the Friends of Cianci -- the mayor's campaign organization -- from businesses and individuals who wanted to be on the tow list.
Prosecutors had moved to dismiss the charge -- citing a "typographical omission" in the wording of the count -- after defense lawyers filed a motion to throw out the charge.
Other counts still remain in the indictment that allege illegal activity on the part of the defendants in connection with campaign contributions and the tow list.
At yesterday's hearing, Torres also refused to dismiss bribery and bribery-conspiracy charges alleging that Cianci and Coloian were involved in the acceptance of a $5,000 payoff to secure a city job for Ise. The indictment alleges that in 1997, David C. Ead delivered to Coloian a $5,000 payoff from Ise, that was meant for the mayor, after Cianci arranged Ise's job at City Hall.
Torres also denied motions by Corrente and Autiello seeking to dismiss other bribery and bribery-conspiracy charges alleging that the pair took a $5,000 bribe to admit Maggiacomo to the police academy.
The next scheduled hearing in the case is set for Friday, when a pretrial motion filed by Corrente, seeking to dismiss two conspiracy counts, based on double-jeopardy grounds, is to be argued.
At the start of yesterday's hearing, Torres had told Cianci lawyer Richard M. Egbert that he wanted the mayor to appear before him next Friday at 2:30 p.m. to address the outstanding question of whether Egbert should continue as his lawyer. [Later, it was learned that Cianci was scheduled to be out of the state next Friday, attending a mayors' conference, so the court agreed to postpone his appearance until sometime the following week.]
Torres has said that Egbert would face a conflict if there were testimony from one potential rebuttal witness for the prosecution -- former city solicitor Ronald H. Glantz -- because Egbert once represented Glantz, a convicted felon.
Torres told Egbert yesterday that he wants to make sure Cianci understands that, if Glantz testifies, "that would very likely result in your disqualification to question Glantz, and possibly your disqualification in the case."
At a hearing on Jan. 31, Torres disclosed that prosecutors want to introduce testimony from Glantz about "alleged bribes and acts of extortion in which [Cianci] was alleged to have participated between 1976 and 1983." The judge replied that such evidence would be inadmissible in the prosecution's main case but that, depending on what testimony Cianci offers, and what character witnesses he presents, the government might have the right to present testimony from Glantz in rebuttal.
Torres said yesterday that, while he doubts Cianci would raise issues that would make testimony from Glantz admissible, he wants there to be a "definitive resolution" of the issue now, before the trial starts.
Lawyers for the defendants and the government have filed memoranda of law with Torres addressing the ethical question of whether, if Glantz were to testify, Egbert would have to be excluded from representing Cianci entirely, or just from questioning Glantz.
But it is unknown what position each side is taking, since the memoranda were filed with the judge, who has not yet put them in the public court record.
Printer-Friendly Version
