STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDDIE A. PEREZ
(SC 19285)
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued October 13, 2015-officially released July 26, 2016
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, McDonald, Robinson and Vertefeuille, Js.
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the “officially released” date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Harry Weller, senior assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state‘s attorney, Michael Gailor, executive assistant state‘s attorney, and Christopher Alexy, senior assistant state‘s attorney, for the appellant (state).
Hubert J. Santos, with whom were Jessica M. Santos and Trent A. LaLima, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion
PALMER, J.
Following a jury trial, the defendant, the former mayor of the city of Hartford (city), was convicted of bribe receiving, fabricating evidence and larceny by extortion for actions he had taken while in office.4 The state had charged the defendant with these offenses in two separate informations but, before trial, moved to consolidate the charges. The trial court granted the state‘s motion to consolidate over the defendant‘s objection, and the cases were tried together before a single jury.
The Appellate Court‘s opinion provides a detailed rendition of the facts underlying the defendant‘s convictions, which need not be repeated in this opinion. See id., 66-77, 82-88. For present purposes, however, it is necessary to briefly summarize the facts underlying the case involving the bribery and fabrication charges (bribery case).5 The defendant was convicted of bribe receiving for accepting free home improvement services from a contractor, Carlos Costa, in exchange for the defendant‘s assisting Costa in connection with certain problems that Costa had encountered while his company, USA Contractors, performed a construction contract for the city. Specifically, the defendant assisted Costa by requesting that the city treasurer expedite some payments due to USA Contractors and by interfering with efforts of the Hartford Department of
The state‘s presentation of evidence in the bribery case, which preceded its presentation of evidence in the larceny by extortion case (extortion case), included the following. Department employees and outside consultants the department hired testified that USA Contractors had performed the construction contract with the city poorly and behind schedule, and that it had submitted baseless claims for additional payments. At some point, at the defendant‘s behest, the city‘s director of capital projects became involved to mediate issues that arose between the department and USA Contractors. Ultimately, because performance remained inadequate, the foregoing individuals together decided to contact USA Contractors’ bonding company and to report the performance issues for the purpose of calling the bond and terminating the contract between the city and USA Contractors. When Costa informed the defendant that a letter to this effect had been sent, the defendant became upset. Thereafter, the director of capital projects wrote another letter to the bonding company rescinding the first letter, without seeking the approval of the others involved in the earlier decision. USA Contractors remained on the job and finished the project well beyond the time period contemplated by the contract with no further action taken on its performance bond.
Costa testified for the state. He agreed that he had sought the defendant‘s assistance with the city‘s expeditious payment of certain amounts due under the construction contract and with the rescission of the department‘s letter to USA Contractors’ bonding company, but, in his view, those actions were wholly justified because he was being treated unfairly and also had experienced problems with late payments by the city. He attributed many of the problems and delays associated with the project to the department, and others to circumstances that were beyond his control. Costa since had sued the city for breach of the construction contract, seeking substantial damages. He believed that the consultants the department had hired operated under a conflict of interest due to their prior involvement in the design of the project. Costa, who had a history of successfully performing other work for the city, had been acquainted with the defendant for a considerable period of time prior to any of the events in question, and considered him a friend. In addition, Costa previously had campaigned and raised funds for the defendant.
Damningly to the defendant, however, Costa also tes-tified that, around the time he sought assistance from the defendant for the problems he was experiencing with the construction project, he was performing kitchen and bathroom renovations at the defendant‘s private residence without receiving any payment for such work. He confirmed that he never prepared a quote, took a deposit or expected to get paid for those renovations. Costa explained that he performed this work for free because the defendant was the mayor and his friend, he considered the work to be a cost of doing business with the city and he believed it would provide him with greater access to the defendant. According to Costa, the defendant did not begin to approach
A number of materials suppliers and construction workers testified to provide detail about the work performed at the defendant‘s residence and its substantial cost. Their testimony established that the amount the defendant ultimately paid for the home renovations was well below market rate. An employee of The Home Depot (Home Depot) testified that the defendant and his wife, prior to the work being done at their residence, had entered into an agreement with Home Depot to provide similar services but thereafter cancelled that agreement, purportedly because they had received a lower offer. The defendant‘s executive assistant testified that the defendant would at times meet or speak with Costa when Costa visited or called the defendant‘s office but that, at other times, he was not available to Costa. The city treasurer confirmed that the defendant‘s office requested several times that USA Contractors receive expedited payment for its construction work, and that checks were issued after auditing protocols ensured that payment was proper. A city employee testified that building permits were not issued for the work performed at the defendant‘s home prior to its completion. A city merchant testified that he had heard from a worker at the defendant‘s home that the work there had been done for free and without permits, and that he thereafter began telling many people in the community, including the defendant‘s political opponents, about what he had heard.
Finally, Michael Sullivan, a former investigator with the public integrity unit of the Office of the Chief State‘s Attorney, testified about the investigation that had led to the defendant‘s arrest. Sullivan had arranged to meet with the defendant and to interview him about the events underlying the extortion case but, at some point, heard the rumors about Costa‘s free home improvement work for the defendant. The interview occurred with the city‘s corporation counsel also in attendance. At the conclusion of the interview, Sullivan asked the defendant whether USA Contractors had performed bathroom and kitchen renovations for him, and the defendant replied that it had. The defendant falsely claimed that he had paid for the work approximately one and one-half years prior to the interview, which was fairly close to the time the renovation work had been completed. Sullivan testified that, at this point in the interview, the defendant became noticeably nervous. The defendant agreed to provide Sullivan a copy of the cancelled check with which he purportedly had paid, but, after some delay, the defendant ultimately provided documentation indicating that he had applied for a home equity loan hours after he had met with Sullivan and subsequently paid for the renovation work with the proceeds of that loan. The defendant also provided the invoice Costa had prepared for the work several months beforehand, which Sullivan determined to be fabricated in that it was created after the fact and lacked supporting documentation. Sullivan‘s investigation also yielded records of telephone or cell phone calls between Costa and the defendant around the time USA Contractors received expedited payments from the city and the time the second letter was sent to USA Contractors’ bonding company. Sullivan also testified that
The defense case largely was presented through cross-examination of the state‘s witnesses. Otherwise, the defendant‘s chief of staff testified for the defense, explaining that the defendant‘s wife had encountered a serious medical issue when the renovation work was being performed at the defendant‘s home, that she underwent multiple surgeries at different hospitals in the six month period thereafter, and that the defendant experienced difficulties in getting the family‘s health insurer to pay all of the resulting bills. He testified further that the defendant was very concerned and distracted by these occurrences, and that he also was busy with his mayoral duties. The chief of staff confirmed that the defendant and Costa were acquainted prior to the events in question due to Costa‘s campaign and fundraising assistance. He also testified that the defendant, as a general matter, prioritized supporting minority run businesses such as Costa‘s and would assist in getting them paid by the city. As to the bribery case, the only other witness whom the defense called was the construction worker who purportedly reported the free and unpermitted work being done at the defendant‘s residence. When called to the stand, he denied having done so and also stated that, in the entire time he had been at the defendant‘s residence, he had seen the defendant there only once.
In his memorandum in opposition to the state‘s pretrial motion to consolidate, the defendant briefly mentioned that consolidation would affect his ability to exercise his right to testify but did not elaborate. On May 18, 2010, near the end of the state‘s presentation of its evidence in the bribery case, defense counsel notified the court and the assistant state‘s attorneys (state) that, when the state concluded its evidence in that case, he would be moving to sever the two cases on the ground that the defendant wished to testify in the bribery case but not in the extortion case. Defense counsel stated that this decision was based on his assessment of Costa as a witness for the prosecution, an assessment he could not have made prior to trial. The state indicated that it was opposed to severance as “not appropriate,” arguing that the defendant, in previously arguing against consolidation, had not claimed that he wanted to testify in one case but not the other. In the state‘s view, the defendant had failed to make the determination as to whether he would testify in a timely fashion, and, therefore, severance was not warranted. The court, for its part, agreed that “[i]t‘s something that probably should have been raised and highlighted a lot earlier.”
On May 20, 2010, at the close of the state‘s bribery case, the defendant filed a motion to sever pursuant to
mation on these points.” The first motion to sever also provided reasons why the defendant did not wish to testify in the extortion case, namely, that his version of the underlying facts in that case would be presented to the jury through his recorded interview with Sullivan, making his live testimony unnecessary, particularly since it would expose him to a risk of prejudicial cross-examination regarding uncharged misconduct that related only to the extortion case.8
When the first motion to sever was argued on May 20, 2010, defense counsel reiterated that his assessment of the defendant‘s need to testify in the bribery case had not crystallized until he had heard the state‘s presentation of its evidence and could evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. According to defense counsel, it was then clear that the defendant had to testify in order to have a chance of acquittal in the bribery case. The state, in response, argued that Connecticut case law indicated that motions to sever based on a defendant‘s wish to testify selectively should be raised pretrial, and that the defendant should have made his argument in this regard at the time of the state‘s motion to consolidate. In the state‘s view, the defendant was making an improper and untimely “attempt . . . to control the course of the case,” and, moreover, it was unnecessary for the defendant to testify because the matters he had identified had been addressed adequately on cross-examination of various witnesses. After a colloquy between the court and counsel regarding the fact that our jurisprudence, at the time, supported a presumption in favor of joinder,9 the court rejected the defendant‘s claim that his constitutional right to testify could outweigh the interest in judicial
Thereafter, on June 9, 2010, following the state‘s presentation of its evidence in the extortion case, the defendant renewed his arguments in a second motion to sever.10 After a June 11, 2010 hearing at which counsel provided extensive detail as to the defendant‘s planned testimony in the bribery case,11 the trial court again declined to sever the cases, reasoning
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court‘s denial of his motions to sever was improper because it constrained his right to testify; see State v. Perez, supra, 147 Conn. App. 93, 113; and the entire panel of that court hearing the case, although split on the question of whether the cases had been improperly joined, agreed. See id., 113;
id., 124-25 (Lavine, J., concurring). Specifically, the panel concluded that the trial court‘s refusal to sever the cases midtrial had compromised the defendant‘s ability to testify in the bribery case, causing him substantial prejudice. Id., 113; id., 124-25 (Lavine, J., concurring). We agree with the Appellate Court that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to sever the cases because the defendant‘s first motion to sever was filed timely and constituted a compelling showing that he had important testimony to give in one case and a strong need to refrain from testifying in the other.
It long has been recognized that joinder of unrelated criminal charges can cause unfair prejudice when it “embarrasses or confounds an accused in making his defense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. United States, 335 F.2d 987, 989 (D.C. Cir. 1964). For example, “[p]rejudice may develop when an accused wishes to testify on one but not the other of two joined offenses which are clearly distinct in time, place and evidence. His decision whether to testify will reflect a balancing of several factors with respect to each count: the evidence against him, the availability of defense evidence other than his testimony, the plausibility and substantiality of his testimony, [and] the possible effects of demeanor, impeachment, and cross-examination. But if the two charges are joined for trial, it is not possible for him to weigh these factors separately as to each count. If he testifies on one count, he runs the risk that any adverse effects will influence the jury‘s consideration of the other count. Thus he bears the risk on both counts, although he may benefit on only one. Moreover, a defendant‘s silence on one count would be damaging in the face of his express denial of the other. Thus he may be coerced into testifying on the count [on] which he wished to remain silent.” (Footnotes omitted.) Id.
“[B]ecause of the unfavorable appearance of testifying on one charge while remaining silent on another, and the consequent pressure to testify as to all or none, the defendant may be confronted with a dilemma: whether, by remaining silent, to lose the benefit of vital testimony on one count, rather than risk the prejudice (as to either or both counts) that would result from testifying on the other. Obviously no such dilemma exists [when] the balance of risk and advantage in respect of testifying is substantially the same as to each count.” Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958, 976 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Undue prejudice will not invariably result from a decision to testify selectively. Consequently, “[a]n accused‘s election to testify on some but not all of the charges on trial does not automatically require a severance.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. King, 187 Conn. 292, 304, 445 A.2d 901 (1982), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303
Conn. 538, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). Rather, the matter remains within the trial court‘s discretion, “though a discretion within limits narrowly confined by the exigencies of the situation. In the end, it is
In State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405, 408-409, 503 A.2d 167 (1986), we adopted the analysis that federal courts use when a criminal defendant contends that severance of the charges is necessary because he or she wishes to testify as to some charges but not as to others. Pursuant to that approach, “no need for a severance exists until the defendant makes a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and [a] strong need to refrain from testifying on the other. In making such a showing, it is essential that the defendant present enough information—regarding the nature of the testimony he wishes to give on one count and his reasons for not wishing to testify on the other—to satisfy the court that the claim of prejudice is genuine and to enable it intelligently to weigh the considerations of economy and expedition in judicial administration against the defendant‘s interest in having a free choice with respect to testifying.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 409, quoting Baker v. United States, supra, 401 F.2d 977.
We conclude that the trial court improperly denied the defendant‘s first motion to sever because the motion was timely filed and his accompanying proffer, as to his need to testify in the bribery case, was sufficient to meet the foregoing standard. At that point in the proceedings, the defendant adequately demonstrated that his interest in testifying on his own behalf in the bribery case outweighed the considerations of judicial economy that had justified joinder at the outset of trial.
The defendant was convicted of receiving a bribe pursuant to
official act. . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, 404, 119 S. Ct. 1402, 143 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1999).12 “In other words, for bribery there must be a quid pro quo—a specific intent to . . . receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” (Emphasis is original.) Id., 404-405. Stated otherwise, the benefit that the public official receives is “the prime mover or producer
Under the law governing bribery, it was essential for the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had accepted a benefit from Costa, namely, free home improvement services. The state also needed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant undertook one or more official acts, such as interfering with the department‘s decisions to call USA Contractors’ bond and to remove USA Contractors from the job, or requesting that the city treasurer expedite payments due to USA Contractors, in exchange for that benefit. Stated otherwise, the state needed to show that the motivating force for the defendant‘s taking of these actions was his receipt of a benefit from Costa, and not his independent judgment that the actions were a proper and warranted exercise of his mayoral authority.
When the state rested in the bribery case, its evidence tended to show that (1) the defendant received substantial home improvement services from Costa, with whom he previously was friendly, without any advance payment or an agreed on price, (2) at various times in the two years that followed, the defendant assisted USA Contractors, Costa‘s business entity, in getting paid and remaining on the city construction contract, despite USA Contractors’ questionable performance, (3) the defendant did not get a bill for the home improvement services until more than one year after they were completed, and that bill stated an amount that was below market cost for the services rendered, (4) the defendant did not pay the bill until several months later, after he was questioned by an investigator, and (5) the defendant, when questioned by that investigator, appeared nervous and falsely reported that he previously had paid for the services. Without an effective rebuttal by the defense, the state‘s proof that the defendant had received a benefit from Costa in exchange for official acts was quite strong.
We conclude that the defendant‘s description in his first motion to sever of the testimony that he would give, when viewed against the foregoing evidence offered by the state, adequately enabled the trial court to weigh the defendant‘s interest in testifying against the countervailing consideration of judicial economy and, more-over, that the trial court‘s denial of the defendant‘s request for severance at that point was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced the defendant substantially. To begin, it bears emphasis that the trial court, in denying the first motion to sever, did not state that the defendant‘s testimonial proffer was in any way inadequate for it to engage in that balancing of interests, nor did it even comment on the substance of that proffer. Rather, the court appeared to deny the first motion to sever on the basis of untimeliness and general deference to the presumption in favor of joinder that existed at the time the cases were tried. Impairment of the choice whether to testify, however, is a recognized form of prejudice that may override that presumption in certain circumstances.13
Next, the defendant‘s proffered testimony clearly had the potential to undermine the state‘s evidence of bribery and, therefore, to provide the defendant a meaningful chance of an acquittal on that charge. Specifically, the defendant proposed to testify regarding when he first sought a bill from Costa, the number of times he followed up on that request and the reasons for his delay in payment. He also offered to provide an explanation as to why he had misled Sullivan regarding the timing of his payment. If the defendant could convince the jury that he had intended to pay for the renovation work all along, that he had attempted to do so much earlier than the state had contended and that he had a good reason for the delay in payment, it would rebut the evidence that the defendant had accepted a benefit from Costa, an essential element of bribery.15
With respect to the defendant‘s false statement to Sullivan, we agree with the Appellate Court‘s apt assessment that “[t]he need to rehabilitate [that untruth] is evident, and, to do that, the defendant‘s testimony was required.” State v. Perez, supra, 147 Conn. App. 123. In his first motion to sever, the defendant also indicated that he would explain “[t]he context of his involvement” in both the second letter to USA Contractors’ bonding company and the expedited payments to USA Contractors. Because there was evidence tending to show that
neither of those courses of action necessarily was unwarranted, it was likely that the defendant would have explained that he undertook them for reasons entirely unrelated to his receipt of a benefit from Costa, thereby negating the state‘s circumstantial proof of an illegal quid pro quo.16
The state contends instead that the trial court properly denied the defendant‘s first motion to sever because it was insufficiently detailed for the court to evaluate his claim of prejudice. This reasoning, however, ignores the actual basis of the court‘s ruling. As we previously explained, the trial court, in ruling on the first motion to sever, did not reject the defendant‘s testimonial proffer as insufficient or even discuss that proffer or address the governing legal standard. Rather, it appears that the court denied the first motion to sever on the basis of untimeliness and the preexisting general presumption in favor of joinder. In any event, the defendant‘s proffer was sufficient to meet the governing legal standard. Our research reveals that, in the usual case in which a court reviewing a claim that a defendant‘s right to testify was impaired by joinder rejects that claim due to an insufficient testimonial proffer, it is because the proffer at issue was entirely bereft of information that would have enabled the court to engage in the required balancing of interests.17 That simply is not the case here.
that the defendant was not prejudiced by the court‘s ruling because his proposed testimony was insignificant, unbelievable or cumulative to other testimony. As we noted, the defendant‘s proposed testimony clearly was relevant to the elements of bribery, offering him a reasonable chance of acquittal, and whether it was credible ultimately was a question for the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190-93 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant was prejudiced when proposed testimony could have refuted state‘s evidence as to his identity as perpetrator of drug sale), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 924, 125 S. Ct. 1642, 161 L. Ed. 2d 483 (2005); cf. United States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 291 (10th Cir. 1983) (defendant was not prejudiced when proposed testimony would not have related to element of crime charged). Moreover, it could not be entirely cumulative of testimony already elicited on cross-examination, particularly insofar as it concerned the defendant‘s own subjective intentions. Although defense counsel‘s cross-examination of Costa suggested that the defendant would attribute his delayed payment for the home improvement work to his wife‘s illness and his assisting Costa to reasons unrelated to the home improvement work, there was no substitute for the jury‘s observation of the defendant‘s own testimony regarding those matters and any explanations that he may have had. See, e.g., United States v. Jordan, 112 F.3d 14, 17-18 (1st Cir.) (defendant was prejudiced when proposed testimony as to his subjective intent could have provided good faith defense to tax
Saving government resources through judicial economy is a legitimate concern. On the other side of the scale, however, is a defendant‘s right to a fair trial at which his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf has not been unfairly impeded. As the core jurisprudence in this area recognizes, testifying in one case while remaining silent in another is, in and of itself, prejudicial to a defendant. See, e.g., Baker v. United States, supra, 401 F.2d 976 (acknowledging “the unfavorable appearance of testifying on one charge while remaining silent on another“); Cross v. United States, supra, 335 F.2d 989 (“a defendant‘s silence on one count would be damaging in the face of his express denial of the other“). Notably, the defendant in the present case
consistently and repeatedly fought consolidation and sought severance of the charges against him throughout the trial court proceedings. In recognition of the fact that juries are suspicious of defendants who choose to testify selectively, the defendant ultimately chose to remain silent in both of his cases. If severance had been afforded, his choice would not have been so constrained. In light of the potentially persuasive defense in the bribery case set forth in the defendant‘s first testimonial proffer, which was timely presented to the court, we conclude that judicial economy should have given way to the defendant‘s opportunity to present that case to a jury free of the significant prejudice that necessarily flowed from the court‘s denial of his motion to sever. See People v. Lane, supra, 56 N.Y.2d 8 (“compromise of a defendant‘s fundamental right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice as the quid pro quo for the mere expeditious disposition of criminal cases will not be tolerated“).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
In this opinion ROGERS, C. J., and McDONALD and ROBINSON, Js., concurred.
PALMER, J.
Notes
“The efforts he‘ll testify as to the efforts he had made to do the home improvement project himself, and the fact that he was at . . . Home Depot picking out a product, a countertop product, the fact that he had been to other stores doing that before he got to Home Depot, the fact that . . . Costa came down to Home Depot to see him and advised him that he could do it a lot cheaper, and, thereafter, the defendant will testify [that] he, at . . . Costa‘s invitation . . . went to his showroom.
“He‘ll testify as to his historical relationship with . . . Costa as a friend and political supporter that went back many years and that, when . . . Costa was doing the work in his home, he did not view [him] as a contractor for the city . . . doing the work but as a friend, and will admit, if he testifies, that, in retrospect, that was a mistake.
“He will testify that he repeatedly requested a bill from . . . Costa. . . . Costa testified that there was a bill request, but I think his testimony was only on one occasion. But [the defendant] will testify when . . . [his wife] came back home from the hospital and they had a reception for her, he asked [Costa] for a bill, and he asked him for a bill a number of times thereafter.
“He will testify . . . concerning the effect of his wife‘s illness regarding—regarding his conduct, and how it affected him in terms of concentrating, reading material that might have been available to him, focusing on the bill that was due . . . Costa. . . . [and Costa would] say, in light of [the defendant‘s wife‘s] illness, there was no hurry on the bill, and [the defendant] was focused on [his wife‘s] illness and put the payment of the bill on the back burner and really did not think there was any immediacy to pay it, although he had every intention to pay it.
“Furthermore, his problem, [in] terms of focus and the problems with the bill, was tremendously compounded by [his health insurer‘s] refusal to pay the medical bills for the doctor in New York at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, and he would receive bill after bill from Medicare, [the health insurer] showing large balances that were due; and this—and this caused him to realize that he might have to get a major loan, not [a] $20,000 loan, but a major loan, not only to pay for the medical bills, but also to pay . . . Costa. And the medical bills just—were not resolved for a long period of time after [his wife‘s] surgery.
“He will further testify [about] his lack of involvement in the home improvement project and that, principally . . . Costa interacted with [the defendant‘s wife] and that he had little, if anything, to do with it because, most of the time, he was off and running at city hall, getting home late in the day from his school board duties and his many, many obligations as the mayor of the city . . . . And he seldom saw . . . Costa at the house or his work[ers] at the house.
“He‘ll further testify that he—when he asked . . . Costa for the bill . . . Costa told him that it was going to run between $26,000 and $28,000, and he was stunned by that amount. And he‘ll testify concerning that, in support of his claim, that he had every intention to pay the bill, otherwise he would not have been stunned by the amount that . . . Costa quoted him.
“He‘ll testify that when he finally got the bill from . . . Costa, he did not read the bill; he did not analyze the bill. He simply saw that the amount was $20,000 plus, and he was relieved that it wasn‘t $26,000 or $28,000. And there was no knowledge, on his part, that the bill was incomplete and misleading, or whatever. He just saw that number, $20,000, and he was pleased that it was—it was in that ballpark.
“He‘ll testify that the decision to turn over the bill—the invoice, through counsel, to the Office of the Chief State‘s Attorney was in no way intended to mislead the state; it simply was in an attempt to show the state what [it] asked for, which was the bill he received from . . . Costa.
“He‘ll further testify . . . that his involvement with Costa regarding the . . . [city construction] project—he‘ll further testify concerning his decision to get [the director of capital projects] involved in the project. He‘ll testify as to the project‘s delay, and that it was an important project to him for many reasons. Once it was—it was a project to benefit the Latino community, of which he was obviously a part and a leader, and also a source of pride to be able to develop something that had not been developed over the years by any predecessor mayors.
“He‘ll testify concerning his decision to accept and follow . . . [the] decision or recommendation [of the director of capital projects] to send the [second] letter to [USA Contractors’ bonding company], and he will deny that accusation made by [a public works official] that there was an episode in his office where he was shaking a letter and saying what the F is this; that never occurred, he will testify in his own defense.
“He will further testify that his decision not to assist . . . Costa in his quest for the payment of claims and extras, and many of which were detailed in the lawsuit and other documents, that he did not, in any way, participate to help . . . Costa get those paid.
“He‘ll testify about his concern of a delay on the [city construction] project—if the project were delayed by terminating . . . Costa, and the tremendous problems it would cause [the defendant], not only in his service to the Latino community, but also politically by the reaction among the merchants and other people who were interested in the project.
“He will further testify that there were many more projects and issues that required his time and attention during the . . . period of time [between 2005 and 2007] when [the city construction project] was going on, including the school building projects, the library construction controversy, and the issues of violent crime in the city . . . and that, when compared . . . with these problems . . . the [city construction] project was a minor project in terms of his priorities [for] the city . . . and the enormity of the other projects that he was involved in, including the eleven school projects, which were budgeted at between $400,000 and $5,000,000.
“He will further testify that the—that [the] practice of supporting businessmen like minority businessmen or contractors, like USA Contractors, was one of [the defendant‘s] top priorities as a mayor and as a candidate for mayor, and, in following through with that commitment, he would make efforts to make sure that they got their approved invoices paid in a timely manner out of the treasurer‘s office.
“He will testify as to the reasons he took to help [to] get some of Costa‘s approved invoices paid. He will testify that he devoted his life to public service and further testify that he is not interested in worldly possessions or the accumulation of wealth or other material things.
“He will also testify that his religious convictions guide his conduct, and those convictions would not, in any way, permit him to accept a bribe or to do anything that not only—or to fabricate evidence, or anything else that would violate his moral code.”
Defense counsel also explained in greater detail why the defendant did not want to testify in the extortion case, an explanation which the state has conceded was adequate.