Eye of newt, anyone?

Late last week, the New York State Attorney General’s office launched a 12-hour raid on State Police headquarters in Albany as part of its ongoing investigation into former governor Spitzer’s alleged use of the state police to spy on Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, the New York Post reported.

Even more troubling, the Post reports, the AG also sent the State Police a letter informing them that Glenn Valle, its longtime chief counsel, could not represent troopers implicated by the investigation.

Typically, prosecutors take this position when an attorney is either personally involved in the activities under investigation or has a conflict of interest. All we know is that during contentious hearings held last year before the state Senate Investigations Committee, Valle defended State Police for following Spitzer’s directives. Now state Republican lawmakers are calling for his resignation.

The problem is, there’s no referee. There’s no judge to ask for a decision. Where does the AG get off with unilaterally disqualifying an attorney? In any contested case in which a prosecutor wants to disqualify an attorney, there is a hearing with evidence and proof. The U.S. Attorney or DA does not write to the client and say, “Hey, buddy, gotta get a new lawyer.” They go to a judge and follow proper procedure.

Responding to the Post’s previous story about Governor Paterson’s request for the investigation, State Attorney General Cuomo issued a statement in which he pointed out that “combining politics and police work is a toxic brew.” By disqualifying an attorney without a hearing, the AG is only throwing more poisoned entrails into the cauldron. Let’s hope that the addition of local white-collar stalwarts Robert Fiske and Michael Armstrong as advisers in this inquiry, announced today, improves the AG's judgment.

Like father, like son?

In a hearing yesterday in Brooklyn federal court, Judge Jack Weinstein disqualified Joseph Corrozo Jr. from representing his father, reputed Gambino family consigliere Joseph “Jo-Jo” Corozzo Sr., in a massive racketeering case. Judge Weinstein called Corozzo Jr. “a brilliant attorney” but said he was off the case because he was also representing an informant against Corozzo Sr. Meanwhile, in another part of the courthouse, another judge gave the prosecution a month to answer Corozzo Jr.’s claims that they are using gossip, innuendo, and lies as part of a smear campaign against him in an effort to get him disqualified from representing Dominick “Skinny Dom” Pizzonia. In their motion papers prosecutors claim that Corozzo Jr. is Gambino family “house counsel” and has actually been proposed for “made man” status. They further claim that he helped plan a shooting, stole money from the family, and tried to shake down a restaurant. One of the main witnesses against Corozzo Jr. is a turncoat named Lewis Kasman, who is a reputed liar and cheater, and self-proclaimed “adopted son” of John Gotti.

Yet again the government will not put its cards on the table. Rather than presenting their evidence to a grand jury, obtaining an indictment, and allowing Corozzo Jr. to defend himself, they throw a virtual kitchen sink of prejudicial claims at him in the “Skinny Dom” matter in order to embarrass him, damage his reputation, and get him thrown off the case. Hearings to examine conflicts of interest are routine. Judge Weinstein clearly made the correct decision; you can’t represent a snitch and someone he is testifying against. However, using a lawyer’s family tree to toss him off a case is just plain wrong. I have been in cases with Joe Jr. and found him a capable and hard-working attorney. He does not deserve to be treated like this. CR