• Richard M. Egbert
will have to temporarily step aside if Ronald H. Glantz, a former client, is called to testify.
BY TRACY BRETON
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE
-- Mayor Vincent A. Cianci Jr. will be able to keep his Boston lawyer, Richard M. Egbert, as his counsel to defend against corruption charges -- subject to some restrictions that the mayor agreed to in court yesterday morning.
Cianci told Chief U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres that he is willing to waive his right to have Egbert cross-examine a potential rebuttal witness the prosecution may call to testify against the mayor -- former City Solicitor Ronald H. Glantz, whom Egbert represented in the 1980s on a perjury charge. Cianci said he would have another lawyer cross-examine Glantz if Glantz were to testify -- something Torres insisted he would have to do.
"I hope you understand I've come a long way in preparing [a defense] with Mr. Egbert," the mayor, standing at a lawyer's podium, told the judge who is presiding over his corruption case. Cianci said he wanted to get the trial started as soon as possible.
Glantz, a convicted felon who served several years in federal prison after being convicted of extortion, perjury and obstruction of justice, was once a close confidant of the mayor as well as his city solicitor and chief of staff. But Cianci said in court yesterday he has had no communication with Glantz since 1981.
It is unclear whether Glantz will ever be allowed to testify. At a hearing Jan. 31, Torres said the government wanted to have him testify about "alleged bribes and acts of extortion in which [Cianci] was alleged to have participated between 1976 and 1983" -- long before the time period at issue in the corruption charges set to be tried in April.
But the judge, citing the remoteness of the allegations and the highly prejudicial nature of the proposed testimony -- "prior bad acts never charged" -- barred the government from using Glantz as a witness in its main case. He said the only way Glantz's testimony would be admissible would be in rebuttal, if Cianci himself, either through his own testimony or character witnesses, does something to "open the door."
Egbert, in addressing the court yesterday, predicted that won't happen and that Glantz would never testify.
"We virtually have a nonwitness," Egbert argued. He said it would be "suicidal" and "silly" for him or Cianci to do anything that might make Glantz's testimony relevant. "It's certainly not our intention" to do that, Egbert said.
Torres told the mayor he wanted to make sure that he realized that Egbert might be faced with "divided loyalties" if Glantz or others Egbert has formerly represented were to testify.
Those include two of Cianci's codefendants -- his chief of staff, Artin H. Coloian, and convicted felon Edward E. Voccola, and a potential government witness, Voccola's daughter, Patricia A. Forte. Government lawyers also point out in a memorandum of law that Egbert also has "potential conflicts" with ex-Public Works Director Joseph C. DiSanto and Anthony Rosciti. DiSanto was charged but acquitted of charges that resulted from a corruption probe of Cianci's first administration. Rosciti was a principal in three companies that had contracts with the City of Providence in the late 1970s and whose records were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury.
"It would be impossible for me to predict how these possible conflicts might manifest themselves . . . I have no crystal ball," Torres told the mayor.
The judge said he would have "difficulty" contemplating what evidence Cianci might offer that would be "admissible" that would allow the government to bring on Glantz as a witness. But "it's conceivable" Glantz could be called, Tores said, so he asked the mayor whether he was willing to go along with some restrictions if Egbert were to continue to represent him.
"I'm very reluctant to disqualify a defendant's counsel of choice . . . as long as there's some acceptable alternative," Torres explained.
Cianci said he was willing to abide by restrictions set by the judge. He told Torres he will hire another lawyer to cross-examine Glantz if he testifies.
The new lawyer will have to be "independent, conflict-free" and immediately available so as not to delay the trial, the judge told the mayor.
Cianci said he understood. In fact, he had Mark L. Smith, a seasoned former state prosecutor and veteran criminal defense lawyer who has represented the mayor's campaign organization, The Friends of Cianci, standing beside him at the podium. Egbert told the judge he had asked Smith to be the mayor's "so-called independent counsel."
But the mayor had one question of the judge before the waiver-hearing was over: What did Torres plan to tell the jury if Egbert were to leave the courtroom while Glantz testified -- something the judge said he would "probably" order, if Glantz were to take the stand.
The judge said he had not given that "one iota of thought."
"What would you suggest?" Torres asked the irrepressible mayor, a member of the bar who is making his seventh run for mayor on a "good government" platform.
"I would tell them the mayor's not guilty," Cianci said, evoking chuckles from the lawyers and spectators.
Later, after court, Cianci stood on the steps of the courthouse for a few minutes as reporters from the local media jostled to interview him.
Torres has issued a broad gag order that prohibits the defendants, their lawyers, prosecutors and potential witnesses from commenting on the case.
But Cianci, as usual, couldn't refrain from expressing his opinion.
As his chauffeur sat waiting for him in his shiny limousine, parked right outside the front door of the courthouse, the mayor insisted, in a response to a question, that there were no plea negotiations going on. "That's not happening," he said.
Of the upcoming trial, he said, "I'm anxious to get it moving."
He said he was satisfied with Torres's decision to let him keep Egbert -- despite arguments from government lawyers that Egbert might be too conflicted to remain on the case. "I obviously was happy that I can keep the lawyer of my choice," he said. Torres, he said, had been "very fair."
But the mayor had a different take on the prosecution. He ridiculed one of the arguments presented by government prosecutors to get around Egbert's conflict of interest with Glantz: The issue could be resolved, prosecutors asserted, if Cianci were to give up all rights to cross-examine Glantz if he were to testify in the case.
"I thought that was bizarre and so did the lawyers," Cianci said.
The mayor also accused the U.S. Attorney's office of making motions to disqualify Egbert or restrict his representation "just so I couldn't have the lawyer of my choice."
He then bid the reporters adieu. "I have to go to the Purim Parade," he said.
