Added: Theo Cheung - Date: 28.07.2021 20:18 - Views: 40981 - Clicks: 3749
Peter S. Jongbloed, John A. Defendant-appellant Philip A. Giordano appeals from a June 13, judgment of conviction and sentence entered after a jury trial before the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut Nevas, J. Giordano, formerly the mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut, was convicted of two counts of civil rights violations under color of law in violation of 18 U.
All of the convictions stem from Giordano's repeated sexual abuse of the minor daughter and niece of a prostitute. Giordano raises a host of challenges to his convictions and sentence, the majority of which are addressed in a separate summary order also filed today.
Because these challenges and the arguments addressed in the summary order lack merit, we affirm the judgment of conviction. Giordano's prosecution on the charges that led to this appeal grew out of an unrelated investigation by the FBI and IRS into political corruption in the city of Waterbury.
Giordano, then mayor of Waterbury, was a target of this investigation. Nevas of the District of Connecticut an ex parte order authorizing it to intercept phone communications of Giordano and other targets of the investigation pursuant to the federal wiretap statute commonly known as "Title III," 18 U. Between February and July ofthe government continued to monitor calls made to and from Giordano's city-issued cell phones, among others, renewing its Title III application every thirty days and submitting periodic progress reports to the district court.
Judge Nevas approved the renewal applications in each instance a total of seven times. In the course of this surveillance, the government intercepted calls on Giordano's cell phones to or from Guitana Jones, a prostitute with whom Giordano had a long-term sex-for-money relationship. On July 12,the government reviewed the contents of a brief July 9 call between Jones and Giordano that suggested that Jones was bringing a nine-year-old girl to Giordano for sex.
In another, equally brief July 12 call, Giordano asked if Jones would have with her the nine-year-old or another female whose age was not discussed. The government had an undercover police officer call Giordano's cell phone on the afternoon of July 12 and leave an anonymous message telling him, in threatening and profane but vague terms, that the caller knew about the little kids and would tell the media if Giordano did not desist.
On July 13, the government intercepted a call between Giordano and Jones in which Giordano told Jones about the message and discussed who might have left it. Giordano asked if the father of the second individual was alive, to which Jones replied: "No, [she] don't say nothin'.
They do not say nothing. They don't say anything. The government advised the district court, in filings on July 13 and 18, that it believed that Jones might be procuring for Giordano the sexual services of Jones' daughter and another minor female relative. On July 20,the government filed a criminal complaint against Jones charging her with violations of 18 U. In the early hours of July 21,state authorities removed Jones' nine-year-old daughter whom we refer to as "V1" and her eleven-year-old niece "V2"from the Jones household.
The FBI intercepted a call soon after in which Jones advised Giordano that state authorities had removed the girls. Giordano placed this sum in an envelope in the mailbox Waterbury Connecticut married women sex commits his house. The FBI arrested Jones shortly after she retrieved the money.
At the behest of the FBI, Jones then called Giordano and falsely told him the driver was demanding additional payment. On that date, after Giordano had given Jones money at the parking lot, agents approached him and informed him that they had evidence of his sexual misconduct and other corrupt activities not relevant to the instant appeal. Over the next seventy-two hours, Giordano cooperated with the agents in the ongoing investigation of other targets of the original corruption investigation.
On July 26, Giordano was arrested. A federal grand jury returned a fourteen-count indictment against Giordano on September 12, That indictment charged Giordano with two counts of violating the civil rights of V1 and V2 under color of law, in violation of 18 U. Before trial, Giordano moved to dismiss the indictment on various grounds, including two of the grounds he raises here.
The district court rejected his motion in a published decision, United States v. GiordanoF. Giordano also moved Judge Nevas, to whom the case was ased, to disqualify himself from ruling on a pending motion to dismiss the wiretap evidence on the ground that Judge Nevas had earlier granted the Title III orders, the validity of which Giordano now challenged. Judge Nevas denied this motion for recusal. Giordano then sought a writ of mandamus in this Court seeking to overturn Judge Nevas' denial of the recusal motion; his petition was denied by unpublished order of this Court on December 18, June 3, " Giordano III ".
Giordano was tried before a jury from March 12 to March 24, In all, some fifty-three witnesses testified. The heart of the government's case was the testimony of Jones, V1 and V2, and the intercepted phone calls. Jones testified that she met Giordano well before his election to the mayor's office, when Giordano was a lawyer in private practice. From the time she first met him until the time of her arrest inshe frequently had sex with Giordano in exchange for money, which she used to support her addiction to crack cocaine.
She met him as often as two or three times a week, usually at his law office, and sometimes arranged for other women to come with her. Jones testified that in the summer ofwhile he was mayor of Waterbury, Giordano asked her to bring "young girls" to perform sexual services. In response to this request, Jones brought several girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, including a niece, to perform oral sex on Giordano. Jones testified that in November ofon an occasion when Jones had brought her daughter V1, her niece V2, a nephew and a son with her to Giordano's law office, Giordano asked her elliptically "What about [V1]?
Jones testified that she said no, but at a subsequent visit a few days later she brought V1 and instructed her to touch Giordano's penis until he ejaculated; while this happened, V2 and other children in Jones' care were in the law office waiting area, separated by a closed door.
Several days thereafter, Jones brought both V1 and V2, who was then ten years old, to the office, where Jones performed oral sex on Giordano in the girls' presence. During the next visit, V1 performed oral sex on Giordano. At the conclusion of this episode, Jones testified, Giordano warned her, "Make sure she don't say Waterbury Connecticut married women sex commits to no-one.
Jones claimed that similar episodes of oral sex for money began to occur with regularity, usually at Giordano's law office but occasionally at Jones' or Giordano's home or an apartment belonging to a friend of Giordano's. In almost every case, the appointments were arranged by telephone. On a school holiday in the winter ofthe date of which Jones could not recall, she brought V1 and V2 to the mayor's office at City Hall, entering through the back door. On that occasion, she directed both V1 and V2 to perform oral sex on Giordano. Jones testified that Giordano told her in a "calm voice" at the conclusion of this visit to "make sure the kids don't tell anyone [or] I'll get in trouble, I'll go to jail.
So I made sure they never said anything to anybody. Yeah, every time after it happened. And I made sure the girls never said anything because I was scared. I didn't want to go to jail. According to Jones, the abuse occurred at City Hall two or three more times. In addition, on two or three other occasions, when the law office was occupied by other people, Jones, Giordano and V1 used Giordano's official city car for V1 to perform oral sex.
V1 and V2 testified at trial via closed-circuit television from another room in which the government attorney and defense counsel were present.
Their testimony substantially corroborated Jones' as to the nature of the acts they performed, the places they performed the acts, and the warnings they received in each instance from Jones and Giordano. The victims also testified that they were hurt by and disliked the abuse but did not tell anyone about it out of fear of what Giordano could do to them. V2, who was twelve at the time of the trial, testified that she learned that Giordano was the mayor from V1 after she first met him. She "thought the Mayor could rule people, like be their boss.
And he would say that, too, like you know, you're not supposed to tell. V1, who was ten at the time of the trial, testified that Jones told her that Giordano was the mayor and she understood that a mayor's role was to " [p]rotect the city" and " [w]atch  over us, like God. In particular, she believed she "would get put in jail" if she told other people because she "thought he had power. She did not remember whether Giordano had told her whether or not she should tell anybody about what they did.
The government also introduced of the wiretapped phone conversations between Giordano and Jones, including recordings corresponding to the particular phone conversations alleged in the indictment.
Some of these calls corroborated Jones' testimony that Giordano sometimes explicitly requested that the girls be present and that he vehemently rejected offers to have Jones' year-old niece come instead. The evidence showed that the actual calls described in counts four through nine of the indictment, which were placed from and to Giordano's Nextel cellular phone, would necessarily have been routed through a switching center in White Plains, New York.
The als that constituted the calls described in counts eleven through eighteen of the indictment originated from or were received on a Cingular cellular phone and would not have left the State of Connecticut. Giordano testified in his own defense. He admitted to paying Jones for sex beginning at some point prior to February of and to having "occasional" sexual contact with her from that time until his arrest, but denied Waterbury Connecticut married women sex commits having any sexual contact of any kind with either V1 or V2 or with Jones' year-old niece.
According to Giordano, Jones would sometimes bring various children including V1 and V2 with her to the law office, but would leave them in a sunroom several rooms removed from Giordano's office, where she would perform oral sex behind a closed door. Giordano claimed he "reluctantly agreed" to Jones' suggestion that he might enjoy receiving oral sex in the girls' presence on a handful of occasions; he had done so by leaving the office door open while Jones performed oral sex on him and V1 or V2 sat in the sunroom.
On the second such occasion, he "didn't feel right" and closed the door. Giordano claimed that the girls had never come to his law office after the wiretapping began in February ofand that none of the intercepted calls in which he asked for one or the other of them to be present actually resulted in their coming with Jones to meet him. He denied that his mention of either child in the intercepted phone calls was for the purpose of soliciting them for sexual contact; instead, he testified, "I had ask [ed] them to be there and she volunteered them to be there for the purposes of them being in the sun room at the time when she was performing oral sex on me.
Giordano made motions for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 at the close of the government's case in chief and at the close of trial, both of which were denied. United States v. This timely appeal followed. Section of Title 18 of the United States Code provides, in relevant part, that. As noted above, counts four through nine and eleven through eighteen of the indictment alleged that on fourteen specified dates between February 23 and July 12,Giordano and Jones used a cellular telephone and a landline telephone, respectively, to initiate the knowing transmission of the name of either V1 or V2 or both with the intent to solicit, entice, encourage, and offer them to engage in sexual activity.
The third count of the indictment alleged that Giordano conspired to violate the statute. United StatesU. MorrisonU. LopezU. He therefore argues that the district court erred in denying his repeated motions to dismiss the indictment and in instructing the jury that they could convict Giordano of the phone counts if they found that the cellular phones were capable of transmitting communications from one state to another.
We review de novo these challenges to the meaning and constitutionality of the statute and the propriety of the jury instructions. GeorgeF. HollandF. These are issues of first impression in this Circuit and have not been addressed by any other circuit.
We address the issue of statutory interpretation first. The phrase "any facility or means of interstate. See generally 18 U. Recently, however, in United States v. PerezF. See also Freschi v. Grand Coal VentureF. RichesonF. MarekF. See id.Waterbury Connecticut married women sex commits
email: [email protected] - phone:(438) 787-9648 x 6515
Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism