New Haven Independent

Cop’s Alleged Victim Put On Defensive

by allison schwartz | August 4, 2009 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

No, she wasn’t drunk. No, she wasn’t dressing “hot” to meet men.

That’s what a Quinnipiac University student told the defense lawyer Monday as the trial of city cop Anthony Maio opened in Connecticut Superior Court on Church Street.

Anthony Maio, a New Haven cop (pictured with his lawyer outside a previous court date earlier this year), has been charged with two counts of second-degree unlawful restraint and two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. His trial began Monday morning before Judge William Holden.

Maio’s career is at stake.

In April of 2008, the state charges, Maio groped two female Quinnipiac University students in a second-floor bathroom of the Crown Street hot spot BAR. At the time, Maio was working there as an extra-duty cop.

The day ended with Maio’s attorney, Tim Pothin, grilling one of the two alleged victims about her “party behavior” and whether she was drinking that night to “get a buzz.”

But first the state walked the woman through the events of the night, and the gist of its case against Maio.

15 Minutes Of Shame

Prosecutor Gene Calistro called the woman as his second witness.

The young woman, who is now 21, entered the packed courtroom Monday afternoon.

Seated before a jury comprised of seven women and one man, she wore a white sleeveless shirt with gray slacks. Unlike on the night of the incident, she had on red-framed glasses.

Calistro immediately began to ask her about the night of the incident. She told him that she and her roommate had taken three shots. Each shot glass was filled half with orange juice, half with vodka.

She took them with her roommate as they prepared to go out. She was wearing a black dress, while her roommate wore a denim skirt with a blue shirt. Her roommate is the other alleged victim.

They took the 10:40 shuttle from the Quinnipiac Campus to downtown New Haven. The two women then walked into BAR. “I had been there once before,” she said.

Calistro asked if anyone checked for identification that evening. Since she was 20 at the time, she said she used a friend’s driver license.

When asked how much she had to drink, “I had two beers,” she told the courtroom. Her roommate had three.

“I’m not a big drinker,” she said. Adding later, “I have never been thrown out of a bar before.”

Calistro questioned her about Officer Maio. She said when she passed him that evening, “he was in full uniform.” He had with him a “gun” and a “baton.”

She then identified him in the courtroom. “He’s wearing a dark suit with a checkered tie,” she stated for the record.

Maio started talking to her roommate that night, the witness testified. When the witness joined the conversation, her roommate was talking about her job dressing as Wonder Woman at Six Flags amusement park.

“I would like to see you in your costume,” Maio said, according to the witness.

During this part of the conversation, the witness said, she told Maio that she wanted to intern for the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. He told her that she should intern somewhere else. He was just expressing his opinion, she said.

According to the witness, Maio returned to the topic of her roommate as Wonder Woman.

As he talked to them, he was leaning against the bar wall. The girls were on either side of him, and he proceeded to put his arms around both girls, the witness testified. She said he “kissed her and I at the same time.”’

“On the lips,” she added.

“I was uncomfortable,” she said.

Maio then suggested that they go upstairs. She had never been upstairs and at the time thought “there was a separate bar,” the witness said, tilting her head as she spoke in the same confident voice she used throughout her testimony.

As she described the next sequences of events, Maio sat next to his attorney scribbling notes.

She said Maio led her and her roommate upstairs. “It was dark,” she commented.

He took the girls into a bathroom, she said. Her roommate went in and then she followed. The lights went on and the door closed.

“Did you consent in any way?” Calistro asked her.

“No,” she said firmly.

She said she remembered the bathroom door was heavy, and Maio had locked it “with his hand.”

He remained in front of them, pressing her roommate against the sink, while she remained near the wastebasket.

She said at the time she thought, “This was wrong,” and “We were in a locked bathroom with a police officer.”

Maio persisted, the witnesses said: He made out with her roommate. She said she saw “his tongue go into her mouth.” At that moment, her roommate squeezed her arm. “She was digging her nails into my arm,” a distress signal they’d previously worked out, the witness stated.

“At what point did he come over to you?” asked Calistro.

She said he touched her roommate’s thigh then “kissed me”.

He moved back to her roommate, where “half his hand was hidden by her skirt,” she told the jury.

“Did you kiss him back?” Calistro questioned.

“No,” she continued, “I was very scared … I was stiff.”

She was eventually able to unlock the door. “Oh, come on,” Maio said, according to the witness, and then he continued to kiss her roommate.

When she looked at her roommate, “the color from her face was gone,” she said.

“We need to go, we need to go now,” the witness recalled saying, before she fully unlocked the door and both girls exited the bathroom.

She said the whole incident lasted at most 15 minutes.

As they walked away from the bathroom, the witness recalled, Maio asked, “Are you girls coming back?”

Prosecutor Calistro asked her about their demeanor. She said her roommate was about “to burst into tears,” while she “was just trying to remain calm.”

They left the bar and contacted two police officers. She told them what had happened.
Instead of taking the girls to a police station, the officers instructed them on where they should go, she testified.

The two young women finally gave a statement at the New Haven police station.

Drinking Habits

Defense attorney Pothin began his cross-examination. He said he wanted to “take this step by step.”

He asserted that the first kiss between Maio and the girls had been consensual.

“It was very quick,” she said.

Pothin questioned what they had to drink. He reviewed the vodka shots and the beers they drank at the bar.

He asked why, if she is a criminal justice major, she bought drinks while underaged.

Pothin further asked her about the shots. She said she took them “like most college students.”

“I’m asking about you,” Pothin responded.

He inquired into her drinking habits, asking, “You used to drink on a regular basis?”

No, she told him. “I don’t drink in large quantities,” she added, and “I drink responsibly.”

On the night of April 18, 2008, had she felt under the influence?

“I was aware of my surroundings,” she said.

He also asked her if it was not her intention to meet guys. “Yes,” she said, she had not gone out to meet men. She further denied trying to dress “hot.”

The witness told police officers at the station that Maio had kissed her. She had not disclosed this information to the first five police officers she had talked to. Pothin asked her why.

The young woman said she was more concerned for her roommate, who was crying.

“I would never make this up,” she continued, “She is my best friend, but I would never put myself through this.”

Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Joe Citizen | August 4, 2009 8:57 AM

This is amazing how this article is so one sided. You forgot to mention the other witness that stated the girls were flirting with officer Maio and that he was repectfully turning down their advances; and that the witness stated that the time upstairs lasted only 5 mins; and the girls came down the stairs like nothing had happened. I would like to know if the girls was digging her nails into the other, is there evidence of nail marks on her? ther just seems to be be way to many questions that need to be asked before one can pass judgement on this case. and this article is not helping the public to get a clear view of the truth.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 4, 2009 9:31 AM

Talk about your totally out of control cop. I don't care if she begged him for whatever. He's a cop. He's on duty. Over the line and out of bounds. Convict his dumb *** and FIRE him-- without the pension, as unusual as that would be.

Posted by: Suh | August 4, 2009 9:40 AM

Why did the states first witness state they only went up stairs for 5 minutes and that when they came down they were all having a good time? these girls are clearly after the money...

Posted by: Joe Citizen | August 4, 2009 9:49 AM

Are there witness to this alleged kiss that allegedly happened out in the public before they all allegedly went up to the bathroom??? you would think in a packed bar one person would have seen this other then the girls.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | August 4, 2009 10:09 AM

ther just seems to be be way to many questions that need to be asked before one can pass judgment on this case

Agreed. Thats why theres like umm, a court case currently underway. Or something.

With regards to Ellis' comment - glad you can remain impartial until the trial has concluded.

I know Maio, and from what I've seen he is a good guy. But I was not at Bar that night nor do I know what transpired other than what has been reported in the press. I'll reserve judgement until all the facts are in. In the meantime I'll just stick with making snarky comments.

Posted by: Bruce | August 4, 2009 10:40 AM

What kind of question is that to ask a witness -- if she was trying to dress hot? That is completely irrelevant to this case and only serves to denigrate the witness. A girl should be able to dress however she wants without getting groped. Any guy, not to mention a uniformed officer on duty, knows that you need clear consent before locking two girls in small bathroom. Regardless, he had no business going upstairs and doing this stuff while he was on duty.

Posted by: lance | August 4, 2009 11:22 AM

ellis, did you feel the same way about bill clinton's escapades "on duty"?

let this incident be a lesson to other cops. if you want to have sex on duty, just do what the uber-liberal nick pastore did. find a toothless prostitute.

Posted by: save our city | August 4, 2009 12:36 PM

Call me old fashioned, but I can remember the days B.C. (before Clinton) when people that held positions of public trust were held to certain expectations.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't try to get 2 flirtatious girls upstairs and alone if I met them @ BAR, but I'd probably not do it while in uniform.

Sounds like the officer needs to be disciplined but girls behaving like that had better not receive a reward.

Posted by: @Bruce | August 4, 2009 12:49 PM

Bruce,
Independent of the facts of this particular case, you are wrong about your attitude that girls can dress however they like. As the mother of both a teenage son and a teenage daughter, I teach them that both have to act responsibly and to think about their actions and the possible consequences. I want my son to act like a gentleman and my daughter to act like a lady. Slutty behavior does not justify groping, but why put yourself in that position?

Posted by: Un-just | August 4, 2009 1:28 PM

I am a NH Police Officer and I have saw the pictures in question. If the judge had allowed those pictures in court yesterday the trial would have been OVER! The pictures show the girls lied. ...c. Now yesterday they testified that they didn't drink much and that they were only at the BAR twice. ...

The jury needs to see who these girls are and they need to know that they are lying on the stand...

Posted by: Bruce | August 4, 2009 2:20 PM

@BRUCE, I think we agree in the sense that people should not be oblivious to the effects of their actions (in this case teens dressing provocatively). All I meant to say was that the prosecutor seems to be implying that it is ok for men to grope women if they dress provocatively. I find that disturbing.

I have no idea how these girls were dressed and I have no idea what transpired that night, so I hope I don't come across as accusatory. I just don't think their dress should be at all relevant to the case.

Posted by: notimon | August 4, 2009 3:40 PM

To the New Haven officer, shame on your, how many of your own have lied on the stand, and I can name, names, I do not think these girls would have wanted to go to Trial if they were lying as you say. What you do in the dark will come to the light, and as nice of a guy as Anthony is, I know him personally, maybe this is something thats been happening with him long before he joined the force. In a way this could be a blessing in disquise for Anthony, because if he continued to do this if he is guilty, what would it lead to later in his life. The jury will decide. Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 4, 2009 4:32 PM

Been Called Worse-- a perp is a perp, isn't that how you cops think? I've never known or heard of a cop who was the least bit interested in anything as silly as a trial to determine guilt. What's good for the goose....

As to Bill Clinton: 1) I assumed he would do the honorable thing and resign-- just as I have assumed John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, David Vitter, etc. would have resigned. He didn't. 2) He didn't violate any laws (unlike Craig and Vitter). Monica consented. This girl did not.

I love you cops screaming this is one sided. You never care about being one sided when you pile on, then tell lie upon lie under oath rather than admit you are too lazy and too stupid to actually investigate anything. If you weren't so lazy and stupid then maybe this might not be the most mobbed up town in America. My mistake, nearly all of you are on the payroll, so why would you investigate?

Posted by: Mister Jones | August 4, 2009 7:03 PM

Well, well, well, I'll jump to conclusions based on an incomplete report of a trial just underway... I can believe every word from the victim witness today and still say there's no crime.

It sounds like all three people, the cop and the girls, made bad decisions but is it criminal? Let's boil this down. The girls did three shots each before getting on the shuttle bus, catching a little buzz before going out. Today's witness said she had two beers at Bar while her roomate had three. That's five and six drinks over perhaps three hours. That's enough to impair judgment. I'm not saying they were drunk and wasted, but they had to be feeling the effects of the alcohol.

The girls flirt with the cop, and are close enough for him to put his arms around each one and kiss them both at the same time. Then he invites them upstairs and they agree. You can see the train wreck coming. She says she thought they were going to an upstairs bar while the cop thinks he's getting his two-girl fantasy.

The girls go upstairs and into a bathroom with him. She says she didn't consent but she walked into the bathroom! The cop starts making out with one, then the other. They are all close enough for him to move back and forth, and for the roommate to dig her nails into her friend's arm. (Isn't that a bizarre little "distress signal"? Imagine that conversation: "if we are both making out with a guy and it gets out of hand, I'll dig my nails into your arm.") The girls realize what's going on, they're in over their heads, get scared and leave. Maybe they never intended to make out with the cop, but they did. Sounds like consent to me. When he went too far, they said no, he stopped and they left.

I don't want to make excuses for the cop's bad behavior. We should expect better from our police, especially when in uniform. But if he was just another cute guy at the bar, there'd be no case. He's charged with unlawful restraint and sexual contact without consent. She doesn't say he kept them there against their will. She doesn't say they said no and he continued to grope. She says they weren't too drunk to know what they were doing. Where's the crime?

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 4, 2009 8:29 PM

Mr Jones--

Let's break it down this way: what if these were your daughters? I suspect you wouldn't be flippantly asking, "where's the crime?" Admittedly, the girls here acted stupidly. It's what 20 year old girls do. Start with the crime that the bar personnel should not have let them in, let alone served them. But, as with the preacher case, it's all about keeping suburban children happy and BAR keeps the right palms greased. Next, a properly motivated ASA could make the 2nd degree sexual assault statute stick here. Then, your comment, "if he was just another cute guy at the bar..." proves how out of touch with reality you are. He was not another cute guy. He was a COP on DUTY in UNIFORM. Frankly, if I were the owner of BAR I would demand a refund of my money since the cop was obviously distracted from the job for which he was being paid $80-100/hr.

Posted by: Been Called Worse | August 4, 2009 8:43 PM

Ellis - I'm not a police officer. Yet your uncanny ability to jump to conclusions somehow doesn't surprise me.

I never said "a perp is a perp". If you are interested in civil debate, try sticking to quoting things I have actually said.

I've never known or heard of a cop who was the least bit interested in anything as silly as a trial to determine guilt.

Good thing for us cops do not decide guilt. That is left up for the courts. And look, we're back where we started. :)

Mr Jones - The scenario you mention above does sound plausible. You zero in on the problem when stating " if he was just another cute guy at the bar, there'd be no case. I think the fact that he was on duty and in uniform changes the scope considerably.

Posted by: william Kurtz | August 5, 2009 7:59 AM

Mr. Copeland:

You're conflating the issues and muddying the waters. First, regardless of whether the two alleged victims were Mr. Jones' daughters, mine, yours, or anyone else's, it doesn't change the nature of the law the determines whether a crime has been committed, so your question isn't 'breaking it down' in any way that makes the situation more clear. Second, not all 20-year old women act stupidly. Third, yes, BAR should come under some scrutiny for allowing underage people in to drink. Fourth, yes, an officer in uniform on duty should be held to a higher standard than some "cute guy at the bar." But is this a matter for disciplinary review or a criminal court? The facts as presented in this case do leave the line a little fuzzy as to where the consenting behavior stopped and the alleged unlawful restraint and sexual assault began.

Posted by: Two Good Hands | August 5, 2009 9:23 AM

Why, how dare two underage girls expect a police officer to obey the law? Don't they know when they engaged in underage drinking and behaving flirtatiously that meant that ANYTHING that the police officer chose to do was okay? And that they would be blamed for how they dressed, how they looked, and how they acted?

Posted by: Mister Jones | August 5, 2009 10:40 AM

Ellis, if they were my daughters I'd want at the guy with my bare hands, but that doesn't change the facts. This is a criminal trial. The statutory issue is whether the touching was consensual. According to the testimony as reported, all the actions in this case suggest consent, until the girls said stop and left the bathroom.

Posted by: downtown | August 5, 2009 10:54 AM

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/08/tears_shed_both.php

A police officer testifies that one of the women were crying when they approached him that night.

Posted by: new haven | August 5, 2009 11:25 AM

The old saying is they love men in blue too bad this has to be all over the papers. A police officer may not have a job and these two girls would not say something of the sort if it did not happen and yes guilty until proven innocent. Hope all works out for the three of them.

Posted by: citizen | August 5, 2009 11:26 AM

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 5, 2009 12:42 PM

William Kurtz--

You are correct that it is a matter of law. There are many men sitting in CT prisons today for doing far less. The prosecutor has only charged 4th degree assault. The behaviour could easliy fit the bill for a higher degree. Have you read the sexual assault statues? Like most of the laws in this state they make very little common sense. But they are the laws. This is not any attempt to hold a cop to a higher standard. It is being tried because he BROKE the existing law. The viciousness with which the defense has gone after these two women only points up that they have no real defense. BTW-- prosecutors do not make a habit of going after cops. The mere fact that this has ended up in court speaks volumes about the truth. And-- were these two women not white, suburban children with the money to go to Quinipiac this would never have seen the light of day. I would strongly suggest you get a real understanding of how the "justice" system in CT works. You will find yourself as disgusted and radicalized as I am.

Cop’s Alleged Victim Put On Defensive

Comments

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed