Newton Seeks Dismissal Of State Charges

Darnell Crosland, the attorney representing Ernie Newton, has filed a motion to dismiss state charges against the former state senator accusing him of falsifying $500 in campaign contributions to trigger an $80,550 grant through the Citizens Election Program of publicly funded campaigns for his state senate bid in 2012. Newton is scheduled to be back in court Jan. 9 before Superior Court Judge Joan Alexander in Hartford.

Crosland accuses state prosecutors of misapplying state statutes to Newton that cover the responsibilities of a campaign treasurer, affidavits made in support of the warrant contained false statements as well as asserting that State Police acted in “reckless disregard for the truth by not investigating fully the allegations alleged to have been made by the five contributors in questions, more specifically, they never questioned the campaign facilitator, Mr. Charlie Coviello who was with Mr. Newton on the day in question, and who escorted Mr. Newton out of the building prior to the final five hundred being raised.”

Coviello, a former mayoral candidate, has been a longtime friend and political supporter of Newton. Coviello claims the state is now trying to implicate him in connection with the case because he stepped up as a witness for Newton.

Newton finished a close second to Andres Ayala in the August 2012 Democratic primary in an effort to regain the seat he was forced to give up following corruption charges in 2006. Crosland’s motion to dismiss includes the following:

The entire basis upon which Mr. Newton has been arrested and charged with a crime in the instant matter is flawed. Para 8 of the affidavit alleges that an individual by the name of A.S. was “urged” by Mr. Newton to sign a document saying that he would make a contribution, but that he never did.

There is no support for the contention that Mr. Newton did anything to violate the statute cited above. The mere fact that an individual referred to A.S. claims that he was urged, vaguely describes if at all what Mr. Newton’s action were. It would reason that every person running for office ‘urges’ ‘encourages’ or otherwise relies on people to make contributions to their campaign.

b. For a person to be guilty of Illegal Practices, the law requires that individual make a payment of promise of payment to a campaign treasurer. The campaign treasurer for the Newton for Senator Campaign was Loretta B.A. Williams. Mr. Newton never made, nor is there any proof that Mr. Newton ever made a promise of payment to Ms. Williams of any sort, in any amount, directly, or indirectly through any other person or persons. In addition, the law states that any campaign treasurer who knowingly payment or promise of payment, or enters or causes the same to be entered in the person’s account in any other name than that of the person by whom such payment is made is guilty of “Illegal Practices”. Here, there are no allegations that Ms. Williams violated that law. Therefore, it would reason that the charges against Mr. Newton could not be supported if the ultimate responsibility rest on the treasurer.

c. We do know that the treasurer was assigned both a liaison and an investigator by the SEEC. These two persons worked closely with the treasurer, and verified almost any and all contributions made to the Newton Campaign. There is even proof that when Ms. Williams thought anything was questionable, that she reported it on her own to the SEEC (see State’s files). In addition, the SEEC would call every single donor to the Newton Campaign and verify that the person making the contribution was in fact the person who submitted the contribution, and was in fact the person who made the contribution, and who signed the contribution card that was in fact submitted to the SEEC.

d. These practice of the SEEC was complied with so zealously, and over zealously, that the Campaign complained that the SEEC was asking donors were they aware that they were supporting a known felon. A behavior that was in fact harassing to the campaign contributors and a violation of Mr. Newton’s civil and constitutional rights. Nonetheless, the SEEC investigators verified that all of the contributions made to the Newton Campaign, including but not limited to the five individuals in question here, was actually made by all the individuals who submitted a contribution card. It should be noted, almost all of the individuals who now make the claims to the SEEC were workers in some fashion to the Newton Campaign, and they all start their complaints off with a grievance against Mr. Newton for allegedly not paying them for the work that they performed for the campaign. This must be considered as a possible motive for either telling the truth to the SEEC investigators about their contributions when the contribution were made and now lying, or lying when they made the contributions and now telling the truth in order to be paid.