MONTALBANO

PROVIDENCE — Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano has joined his predecessor in asking for a jury trial on the ethics charges against him instead of a decision by the state Ethics Commission.

The commission, meanwhile, has scheduled its own version of a trial, an adjudicatory hearing, on the Montalbano case for June 5 and 6. Shifting to a jury trial would apparently divert the case into Superior Court.

Former Senate President William V. Irons broke new legal ground last month when his lawyer, John A. Tarantino, asked for a jury trial to defend Irons against the state ethics charges against him.

Montalbano’s lawyer, Max Wistow, said yesterday that the public, in the form of a jury, ought to decide the charges against his client. Montalbano is accused of violating the state ethics code by failing to report tens of thousands of dollars in income from West Warwick for legal work associated with the Narragansett Indians’ failed casino proposal. He’s also accused of participating in Senate votes when he had a clear conflict of interest.

Wistow has said the violations were inadvertent, a critical legal distinction. The commission regulations say that it must decide whether a complaint alleges facts that would constitute “a knowing and willful” violation of the code. Otherwise, the charges are to be dismissed.

While a jury trial would be somewhat similar to a commission adjudicatory hearing — with witnesses, evidence and prosecution and defense lawyers — the differences would be profound. Instead of the members of the Ethics Commission, who have been involved in the cases since their inception and who deal continually with the intricacies of enforcing the state Code of Ethics, a citizen jury would decide the cases.

Commission lawyers have indicated they will probably contest motions for jury trials in arguments before the commission, and the cases seem likely to end up in court one way or another.

In the Irons case, Katherine D’Arezzo, the commission’s senior staff attorney, has said she doesn’t think officials have a right to a jury trial on cases before the commission. She suggested that the commission staff will probably oppose Irons’ request. Assuming the commission agrees with its staff, the defense lawyers could then appeal the commission decision to Superior Court.

On the other hand, the commission might fight to retain control of its cases rather than see them shunted to the courts and itself relegated to a much smaller role in enforcing the Code of Ethics.

The Journal has reported that Rhode Island banks that have used Montalbano for legal work have been questioned by federal authorities as part of Operation Dollar Bill, the State House influence-peddling probe. Montalbano was part of the Democratic Senate leadership that Irons headed, holding the majority leader’s job.

In the case before the commission, Irons is accused of breaking the ethics laws by using his office for financial gain and by voting on pharmacy legislation where he had a substantial conflict of interest. The charges stemmed from Irons’ participation in the Senate Corporations Committee’s consideration of pharmacy “freedom of choice” legislation in 1999 and 2000.

The Journal has reported that Irons received $70,000 in commissions on a Blue Cross health-insurance policy for CVS employees in 2000 and 2001, and another $25,000 in 1999. That was a year that Irons, while chairing the Corporations Committee that regulates health care, opposed a controversial pharmacy-choice bill that Blue Cross and CVS opposed.

blandis@projo.com