With Pirro’s Demise, Unravel The Lies.

Extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct of Pirro Regime Exposed.

Last Tuesday in United States Federal District Court, White Plains, The Westchester Guardian was present in Judge Charles L. Brieant’s Court when the following startling exchange occurred. Judge Brieant, was opening what was to have been preliminary discussions leading to a series of Evidentiary Hearings to determine if, in fact, the Westchester District Attorney’s Office had committed severe prosecutorial misconduct, specifically the withholding of Brady Material, (information possessed by a prosecutor which tends to support the innocence of an accused) in their trial and conviction of Anthony DiSimone in October, 2000 in the stabbing death of Louis Balancio, February 4, 1994. Brieant began with, “We reached an agreement that if the defense counsel had not seen the Brady Material the opposition would agree to the granting of a Writ of Habeus Corpus.”

David Feureisen, attorney for Petitioner Anthony DiSimone, now offered, “At this point the People no longer wish to stipulate, Your Honor.”

Assistant District Attorney Valerie Livingston now declared, “The law does not require us to release Brady Material. Your Honor, I have prepared an affidavit withdrawing our opposition to the granting of a Writ.” That declaration clearly caught Judge Brieant, and most everyone in the courtroom by surprise.

Livingston went on, “An issue that remains is whether the writ should be conditional or unconditional.”

Responding quickly to the dramatically changed circumstances, Brieant then called the attorneys for both sides into conference for approximately half an hour.

Emerging from conference Judge Brieant addressing those present, and for the record, stated, “This matter was here for an Evidentiary Hearing on remand.” He went on, “ The Court is indebted to the District Attorney for the affidavit. The affidavit has taken the high road, and thus obviates the having of the Evidentiary Hearing.”

Appearing genuinely delighted with the unexpected turn of events, Brieant then declared, “This is wonderful. It’s what every prosecutor, federal, and state, ought to do. I want to thank you for your action Ms. Livingston.”
Of course, it was what every prosecutor ought to do; only in this case, it was 12 years too late. And, ADA Livingston was only the messenger, after all. The decision to drop opposition, virtually go into court “hands up” declaring, “You’ve caught us. We surrender,” was Janet DiFiore’s; caught between a rock and a hard place. But make no mistake, the decision was not motivated as suggested by Livingston when she told Brieant, “We are doing these things, Your Honor, out of a sense of fairness and justice.”

No, not by a long shot. If it was “fairness and justice” the District Attorney’s Office was pursuing they had 12 long years to do the right thing. And, while Judge Brieant, in his graciousness and wisdom very kindly praised and applauded ADA Livingston’s act as a “taking of the high road,” by way of encouraging other prosecutors to follow by example, he knows very well, as does every right-thinking individual familiar with the case, that Janet DiFiore’s decision was all about self-preservation.

After all, does she really expect intelligent observers to let her have it both ways? It’s not as though she was a newcomer to the office, when she sat down in Mrs. Pirro’s seat nearly a year ago. She had been part of the DA’s Office, much of her tenure under Pirro’s regime, for 12 years. She was not unfamiliar with the tactics, nor the willingness to engage in extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct, particularly in high-profile “ prosecutions of opportunity.”

In point of fact, when Janet DiFiore assumed office in January the DiSimone case was long engaged in the appeals process, as were numerous other miscarriages of justice. Would she have us believe that she failed to fully familiarize herself with the issues and the evidence, and the records at her disposal, knowing very well that she would be making major decisions as the process progressed?

The Westchester Guardian on the front page of its August 31st edition, fully three months earlier, in a headline reading, “Federal Appeals Court Exposes Pirro’s Misconduct,” had alerted all of Westchester that something very wrong had been done by the District Attorney’s Office in the DiSimone case offering United States CircuitCourt Judge Calabresi’s exclamation, “In twelve years on this Court I have never seen such a Brady violation.” Even if DA DiFiore had somehow neglected to familiarize herself before, which would be the height of incompetence, surely the outrage and admonishment expressed by Judge Calabresi had to have set her off in search of what was so egregious.

No, there is no virtue in what was done by the District Attorney’s Office in Federal Court last week, as further demonstrated by the fact that in spite of their virtual admission of extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct, in fact, rising to the level of criminality, they are still locked in opposition to Mr. DiSimone’s effort, by insisting upon a conditional,rather than unconditional, grant of Habeus Corpus. Might they be trying to save face? Or, are they attempting to somehow mitigate the certain civil implications of such Constitutional violations as one would never expect could occur when a district attorney has a confession from the actual killer just six days after a violent murder?

Analysis: The broader significance of the revelation of extreme Prosecutorial Misconduct in the DiSimone case, beyond its implications for Mr. DiSimone and his family, rests in its confirmation of what other innocent victims of the Pirro Regime have been saying for some thirteen years. These violations were no mere shortcuts, no honest, good faith mistakes of judgment, but rather, intentionally calculated, and maliciously executed crimes by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro, carried out by her team of misguided, ethically, and morally challenged assistants, collaborating withequally unethical police, medical examiners, so-called expert witnesses, and civilians as well.

While we must feel sympathy for the family of the tragic victim of violence, young Louis Balancio, even now, nearly thirteen years later, with all due respect, Jeffrey Balancio, father of the victim, ought not to be too hasty in his judgment of the justice denied Anthony DiSimone, and indeed, the DiSimone, and the Balancio families, by referringto the exculpatory evidence withheld as “incidental stuff.”

When District Attorney Pirro, and her First Deputy, Clement Patti, who would prosecute the case, armed with a confession of the actual killer within six days of his senseless murderous act, made the conscious decision, to instead prosecute an innocent man, because his surname better fit Mrs. Pirro’s self-promotional agenda, a series of criminal activities were set in motion that will only be righted when Anthony DiSimone walks out of prison a free man, and all those responsible for his wrongful prosecution and imprisonment are themselves brought to justice.

Again, the broader significance lies in the fact that what happened to Anthony DiSimone, the suborned perjury, the confabulation of “facts,” the intimidation of witnesses, the courtroom appearances and trial in the press by the elected DA, the withholding of exculpatory evidence, and so many more wrongful and unlawful acts were not, and are not unique to his case, but rather symptomatic of a pervasive pattern of practices by which the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office did the People’s business. Jing Kelly, Richard DiGuglielmo, Steven Nowicki, Matthew McKerrick, Marci Stein, and Selwyn Days, to name just a few, all have known, and continue to know the pain and despair that comes with being innocent, yet victimized by an evil and self-serving prosecutor.