Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford, Connecticut. on Monday, November 14, 2022.” loading=”eager” srcset=”https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/80×0.jpg 80w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/160×0.jpg 160w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/240×0.jpg 240w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/360×0.jpg 360w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/480×0.jpg 480w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/640×0.jpg 640w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/720×0.jpg 720w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/960×0.jpg 960w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/1080×0.jpg 1080w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/1440×0.jpg 1440w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/1920×0.jpg 1920w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/2200×0.jpg 2200w, https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/30/27/27/23164370/5/2400×0.jpg 2400w” sizes=”” style=”aspect-ratio:1 / 1″ class=”x100 y100 opc bgpc ofcv bgscv block bg-gray200 mnh0px fill”>
Former Stamford Democratic Party Chairman John Mallozzi is sentenced to two years of probation and $35,000 in fines in an absentee vote fraud case stemming from the 2015 local elections in Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford, Connecticut. on Monday, November 14, 2022.
Tyler Sizemore/Hearst Connecticut Media
STAMFORD – The state Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of former Stamford Democratic City Committee Chairman John Mallozzi on charges related to absentee ballot fraud.
In September 2022, a state Superior Court judge found Mallozzi guilty of 14 counts of second-degree forgery and 14 counts of false statement in absentee voting, all in connection with the 2015 Stamford municipal election. He was sentenced to serve two years of probation and a $35,000 fine.
After the Court of Appeals issued its opinion Friday, Mallozzi’s attorney, Stephan Seeger, said he will take the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Article continues below this advertisement.
“We see fundamental errors on important legal issues that were not adequately considered by the appeals court,” Seeger said in a statement.
Mallozzi’s original appeal centered in part on the testimony of a handwriting analysis expert, Greg Kettering. Seeger argued that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Mallozzi had forged the signatures of several voters in 2015 and therefore could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Kettering compared handwritten entries and signatures that investigators suspected were forged and samples of Mallozzi’s handwriting. In his case notes, Kettering said there were “hints” of a common perpetrator in many cases, “but the evidence falls far short of what is necessary to support a definitive conclusion.”
When Kettering was on the stand at Mallozzi’s trial, he said that when he considered all the documents together, he found it was “highly probable” that there was a common author.
Article continues below this advertisement.
“The only way the court could find (Mallozzi) guilty was by relying on Mr. Kettering’s ‘aggregation,'” Seeger said in an appeal brief. “In other words, instead of engaging in ‘a separate and independent determination of whether (Mallozzi) is guilty or not guilty of each of the charges,’ the court simply found him guilty ‘on average.’”
The Connecticut Court of Appeals said Seeger’s argument “was futile.”
A judge must consider “all of the evidence” when determining “whether the state has met its burden of proof,” Judge Melanie Cradle wrote in the opinion, with which Judges Nina Elgo and Eliot Prescott concurred.
Nor was Kettering’s testimony “the only evidence of the defendant’s guilt,” Cradle wrote.
Article continues below this advertisement.
Former Republican City Clerk Donna Loglisci admitted on the stand that she had provided absentee ballots to Mallozzi even though it violated state law. Employee Diane Pesiri said she had prepared sets of ballots for Mallozzi to pick up at the city clerk’s office. And State Election Enforcement Commission investigator Scott Branfuhr had discovered that signatures on several absentee ballot applications appeared to be similar.
Seeger maintained that he was “cornered” by Kettering’s “undisclosed opinion,” and the trial judge unjustifiably denied his request to bring his own expert to the stand.
The Court of Appeals also denied that claim, saying Mallozzi “was aware of the state’s reliance on (Kettering’s) opinions since he was arrested, as referenced to them in the arrest warrant affidavit.” The affidavit said Kettering had concluded that “the entirety of the case points strongly toward” Mallozzi.
Seeger also argued that the trial judge should have overruled Pesiri’s testimony. She appeared as a state witness and Seeger planned to have her also testify as a defense witness.
Article continues below this advertisement.
But Pesiri and others chose not to take the stand after the judge told them that anything they said could be used in an FBI investigation related to the 2017 Stamford election, which came to light during the trial. The current city clerk, Lyda Ruijter, had alleged in a complaint to the FBI that absentee votes were mishandled in a race between her and Loglisci in 2017.
Seeger “had ample opportunity to cross-examine” Pesiri when he testified earlier in the trial, Cradle wrote in the Court of Appeals opinion.
Finally, Seeger argued that the state selectively prosecuted Mallozzi because he obtained legal counsel during the SEEC investigation and others did not. The trial judge denied his motion to dismiss the case on those grounds. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge.
Mallozzi “ignores the difference between his behavior and that of other people who he believes were in a similar situation,” Cradle wrote. “As (the Superior Court judge) correctly determined, the defendant was the one who fraudulently filled out absentee ballot applications and forged the victims’ signatures.”
Article continues below this advertisement.
On Friday, Seeger said the Court of Appeals took “some factual liberties” and that there were “things that the panel seems to simply overlook or ignore.”
brianna.gurciullo@hearstmediact.com
Keynote USA
For the Latest Local News, Follow Keynote USA Local on Twitter.