New Haven Independent

Cop: Student Was Drunk

by allison schwartz | August 6, 2009 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

One of the college students city cop Anthony Maio allegedly groped at a downtown nightclub was “very intoxicated” at the time, one of Maio’s longtime friends and colleagues testified Wednesday.

Lt. John Velleca was one of three cops who testified Wednesday on the third day of Officer Anthony Maio’s sexual assault trial in Connecticut Superior Court on Church Street.

Maio is accused of two counts of unlawful restraint and two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. While working an extra-duty job at BAR one April evening in 2008, he allegedly took two underaged Quinnipiac University students upstairs to a bathroom, locked them inside, and fondled them.

Velleca, currently the head of the police department’s tactical narcotics unit, was a sergeant at the time of the BAR incident. He and Maio have been friends for 13 years; he testified that that relationship did not affect his version of events.

Maio’s lawyer, Timothy Pothin, asked Velleca if either of the girls seemed under the influence. Velleca said the taller of the two women was “very intoxicated.” He added, “they both smelled heavily of liquor.”

Earlier in the trial, one of the women testified that they weren’t drunk, but that they had had a couple of beers and, earlier, three shots of liquor.

Prosecutor Gene Calistro (pictured), the prosecuting state’s attorney, asked Velleca if he informed another police officer at the time of the incident that he had noticed that the woman was intoxicated. He had not. Calistro then noted that Velleca had never filed a police report stating “that she was intoxicated.”

Calistro then returned to a statement made by Velleca earlier in the day. Velleca had told attorney Pothin that only one woman had reported Maio’s advances. However, Calistro stated that in Velleca’s written report at the time, he stated, “Both independently stated that Officer Maio directed them into a private bathroom.”

Velleca, who was wearing a black suit and a turquoise tie on the stand, hesitated. Calistro, in a more aggressive voice said, “Sir,” the statement was “in your memorandum, is it not?”

“Yes,” Velleca (pictured) said into the microphone.

Calistro later asked Velleca why, if he thought the women were drunk, he had not called an ambulance or requested medical assistance.

Velleca stuck to his claim. “They were drunk,” he said. “At least one was.”

Joyner: They Weren’t Drunk

Detective May Joyner and retired cop Chris Kelly also took the stand Wednesday. Joyner recalled receiving a call about two women with a complaint against a police officer. He went to meet them. They didn’t seem drunk, Joyner said.

“What happens next?” Calistro asked him.

The two women were separated, Joyner said, and he interviewed them independently.

Joyner looked at the jury as he spoke; he recalled that one woman was calm. As for the other woman, “you could tell she had been crying,” he said.

Once again Calistro asked whether the two women seemed intoxicated.

“They didn’t appear intoxicated to me,” Joyner responded.

Calistro continued. “Were you able to detect an odor of alcoholic beverages?”

“I did,” Joyner said. He later said the women did not seem confused or disoriented in any way. There was “no stumbling,” he said.

One of the woman’s makeup was smeared. She appeared to have been crying, he said.

Joyner said he first did a pre-interview. He wanted to make sure he “had the facts correct.” Joyner said he then took two taped statements. The interviews took place in the department’s internal affairs division.

Joyner also viewed a tape from cameras at BAR. The cameras had recorded certain areas of the second level of BAR. Joyner said it had not depicted anyone on the tape.

Joyner concluded by saying that he had not lifted fingerprints from the bathroom where the alleged incident took place.

After Joyner left the courtroom, Calistro said the state had no further witnesses.

Pothin then presented a written motion for acquittal of the charges against Maio.

“Kissing,” Pothin argued, does not constitute sexual assault in the fourth degree. He further claimed that the first women to testify had only recently mentioned that “she was touched on the breast.”

As for the other woman, Maio had put his hand under her skirt for less than one second, Pothin contended. He further maintained that once she pushed Maio’s hand away, there had been no other contact.

“I fear a grave injustice could be done,” Pothin protested, if the sexual assault charges go to the jury.

He contended that the women walked upstairs into the bathroom by their own free will. Maio had not used deception, Pothin stated. As for Maio sliding a lock across the door, Pothin contended that “that in of itself is not confinement.” He argued that the charges of unlawful restraint should be dropped.

Calistro responded to the motions stating the case was about credibility. The “case comes down to the word,” of the witness, he argued. He claimed that the jury should be the ones to determine her credibility.

“In terms” of the women entering the bathroom voluntarily, they thought they were getting free drinks, he said. He said that beause Maio had been friendly and wearing a police uniform, they trusted him.

“The state has to prove a lack of consent,” Calistro continued. The women said they were in “shock.”

As to the amount of time Maio had his hand under the woman’s skirt, Calistro used the game of Operation as an example. He said at the point the buzzer goes off, it’s over. Maio never should have had his hand there to begin with, Calistro argued.

Judge William Holden denied the motion.

Previous coverage of this case:

• Tears Shed Both On And Off The Stand
• Cop’s Alleged Victim Put On Defensive
• Maio Deal On Hold
• Cop Denies Groping Students
• Cop Arrested On Sexual Assault Charges

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Gina Keho | August 6, 2009 10:54 AM

Oh my god Calistro, please tell me you didn't waste our tax payer dollars on the word of two drunken liars? Two of your very own witnesses give independent and unbiased testimony that your complainants were intoxicated. Your complainants even stated they don't "drink much" but that they went up stairs to get "free drinks" at 1 am in the morning, yea, that's typical of a person who doesn't drink. Your complainants stated that they are roommates and didn't talk about this case, not even to each other? Are you kidding me? How many lies do they have to tell before your responsibility to the legal systems checks and balances kicks in and you drop this fiasco? My favorite of all time is when you attacked your own witness and the entire police profession by insinuating he was lying under oath to uphold "the blue line". Are you kidding me? That's all you have? Where's Capt. Joanne Peterson? Why haven't you called her to the stand yet? Credibility issues with her too? Oh that's right she's under investigation too! ... What about the ID? Did they borrow it from a friend? If so did they give it back to that friend? No? They got rid of it? Why? Gene, you are a class act, I hope I never have to work with you in the future. Grow up, what you did to Capt. Valeca and the whole police profession was inexcusable. You want to win so bad that you refuse to look at the facts; maybe this will be a good wake-up call for you. ...

Posted by: lance | August 6, 2009 11:39 AM

if obama gets his way with nationalized health care the doctors of the future will be training on that very game.

Posted by: downtown d | August 6, 2009 12:16 PM

Lance: that was about the lamest attempt at humor i've ever seen.

please open your ears and eyes and read past the propaganda.

Posted by: Mister Jones | August 6, 2009 1:05 PM

Don't blame Gene Calistro for doing his job. He has to try the case once prior efforts to resolve it failed. I happen to think it's a weak case, with little evidence of nonconsensual touching, which is what the case is about. But sometimes these high profile cases need to be tried. If the cop wasn't ever charged [and based on the original statements he probably had to be, even if the facts don't play out well in court], there'd be cries of a blue wall cover-up.

So, because of circumstances, lousy cases have to go to trial sometimes. That way the victims get their day in court and a jury decides. Unfortunately, victims and a cop who likely committed no crime get put through the wringer. Although I don't feel so bad for him. Unless these girls are completely fabricating their stories, which seems unlikely, he may not be guilty but he is far from innocent.

Posted by: Wallingford PD | August 6, 2009 1:21 PM

"Gina" I'm a police officer in Wallingford, and we agree, ADA Calistro crossed the line.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 6, 2009 3:51 PM

1)Why was Maio upstairs at all?
2) The "she was drunk therefore I did nothing wrong" is, in my book, a prima facia admission of guilt. If she was drunk then, by definition, she could not consent. The attempt to say she consented means something happened.

Convict [him]... send him to a well deserved cell and get him OFF the city payroll WITHOUT a lifetime pension.

Posted by: notimon | August 6, 2009 4:03 PM

its interesting how cops can comment on somebody crossing the line, we see in the news in different states all the time of cops crossing the line. Now one of your own is in trouble and the DA is accuse of crossing the line, give me a break Wallingford cop, This is not crossing the line, he has to prosecute the case because all deals fell through. The judge said this case will go to trail and if Anthony is innocent it will play out in court. Let this be a lesson to all of you who was given authority to enforce the laws and swore to protect AND serve the public. If you are dirty and you know it, then change your ways before you end up in front of a jury. Stop blaming the DA and just do your jobs properly and professionally and this will probably never happen to you or your partner. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Get the Truth | August 6, 2009 7:49 PM

I'm sorry, but if I understand this correctly? The girls don't drink "that much" but wanted to get "free drinks in a bathroom" at 1am. They stated they weren't drunk, but (5) other witnesses for the state and the defense testify that they were intoxicated. Then they state that the officer opened the door, turned on the lights, and then locked the door. Well then there must be fingerprints on the door handles, the lock and the light switch. Where are the fingerprints? How about the rape kit? How about the (DVR)? Where's the evidence? Why didn't Capt. Petersen obtain this evidence? I mean the girls claimed that they were sexually assaulted and you don't bother to gather evidence?

Then one of the complainants testifies that they only went to the BAR twice and the other complainant testifies that they went there many times... they probably just forgot to rehearse that question but lets move on. They said they obtained an illegal ID from a friend but destroyed it after this incident. Boy, there "friend" must have been very upset after getting the news about that... One question though, how did they get into other New Haven bars after that night in question if they destroyed the illegal ID? The defense has pictures to show these girls were drinking at multiple bars, kissing multiple men and exposing themselves in public, all after the BAR incident. How did they get into these bars if they destroyed the illegal ID? Did they lie to the prosecutor about what they did to the illegal ID? Or did they tell the truth and just go out and obtain another illegal ID? Either way they lied and perjured themselves.

Then the complainant reports that night in question that she sees the officer touch and grope her friend but when she testifies she "can't recall" seeing that? Uhh umm, hello...

Will the prosecutor ever clear this up? He has an obligation as a lawyer/prosecutor to seek the truth.

Posted by: Lifer | August 8, 2009 6:14 PM

Why is Anthony Maio's wife standing by him? She needs to slap some sense into him.

Posted by: Curious | August 15, 2009 6:05 AM

I dont think Wallingford PD is a cop. If he/she was they would know that CT has ASA (Assistant State's Attorneys not ADA(Assistant District Attorneys) But then again, they can only arrest people if Dortenzio says its "OK" so they might not even know where the ASA Office is

Cop: Student Was Drunk

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed