When U.S. District Judge Alan Nevas sentenced former State Senator Ernie Newton to 60 months of imprisonment in February of 2006 for pleading guilty to bribery, mail fraud and tax evasion it also included three years of federal supervised release following completion of incarceration under the authority of the U.S. Probation Department. Newton appeared well on his way to completing supervised release this summer, but that could change if the state charges leveled against Newton for alleged campaign finance irregularities hold up, and the Probation Department determines Newton violated conditions of his release. Is the state’s case against Newton strong? Or was he targeted by ambitious investigators?
In general a finding of a violation of supervised release may lead the court to (1) revoke supervision and impose a term of imprisonment, (2) extend the term of supervision, and/or (3) modify the conditions of supervision. Newton and his lawyer Darnell Crosland will be in close contact with the Probation Department as these state charges play out.
Now retired from the federal bench, Nevas was vocal in his distaste for Newton’s conduct and particularly offended by Newton’s declaration he was the “Moses of my people.” Nevas set forth a series of conditions–special and mandatory to go along with the standard conditions for supervised release.
A review of Nevas’ sentencing order obtained by OIB shows Nevas ordered the following special conditions for Newton that included:
1. The defendant shall participate in a program approved by the Probation Office for inpatient or outpatient substance abuse treatment and testing. The defendant shall pay all or a portion of the costs associated with treatment based on the defendant’s ability to pay as determined by the probation officer.
2. The defendant shall pay restitution in the amount of $13,862.00, payable at a rate of no less than $250.00 per month payable to State of Connecticut, c/o Elections Enforcement Commission. The monthly payment schedule may be adjusted based on the defendant’s ability to pay as determined by the probation officer and approved by the Court. The defendant shall pay restitution to the Internal Revenue Service as negotiated and agreed upon and as reflected in the amended returns and revenue agent’s report. Any remaining balance is to be paid by the end of supervised release period.
Newton was required to satisfy condition 2 above to regain his voting privileges and run for public office. In the state of Connecticut persons convicted of a felony may vote, and thus may run for public office, provided they are not incarcerated and have satisfied all court-ordered fines and restitution.
Nevas also set forth Mandatory conditions of supervised release.
The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local offense;
The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance;
The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance and submit to one drug test within 15 days of release on supervised release and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter for use of a controlled substance;
The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the defendant.
The condition “The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local offense” could be problematic for Newton if he does not defeat the state charges.
In addition Newton must adhere to these standard conditions:
(1) The defendant shall not leave the judicial district or other specified geographic area without the permission of the court or probation officer;
(2) The defendant shall report to the probation officer as directed by the court or probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each month;
(3) The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;
(4) The defendant shall support the defendant’s dependents and meet other family responsibilities (including, but not limited to, complying with the terms of any court order or administrative process pursuant to the law of a state, the District of Columbia, or any other possession or territory of the United States requiring payments by the defendant for the support and maintenance of any child or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living);
(5) The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons;
(6) The defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten days prior to any change of residence or employment;
(7) The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance, or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substance, except as prescribed by a physician;
(8) The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered, or other places specified by the court;
(9) The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;
(10) The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit the defendant at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view by the probation officer;
(11) The defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer;
(12) The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the court;
(13) The defendant shall pay the special assessment imposed or adhere to a court-ordered installment schedule for the payment of the special assessment;
(14) The defendant shall notify the probation officer of any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay any unpaid amount of restitution, fines, or special assessments.
Looks like Moses is now the cooked goose of his people …
Duck Test Review
Newton was arrested Friday afternoon by state investigators.
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The test implies a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject’s habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments something is not what it appears to be.
This random review was a set-up by Stephen Cashman chair of EEC against Newton, and now the State better cover its ass.
Every campaign received a letter this past weekend from the EEC.
It’s a get Newton and Ganim campaign by the EEC, they want to change the rules.
EEC just opened this can of worms, let’s see them do their jobs now.
They’d better open every campaign in this State, and then some, call it THE DUCK TEST REVIEW.
Fight Hard Ernie!–Fight Hard!
Jimfox, that’s very interesting.
*** This judge seemed a bit biased in his sentencing of Newton. His turn to be judged will come someday by a much higher authority, no? ***
The post-sentencing conditions imposed upon Newton are virtually boilerplate. The same format for all convicted felons set for probationary release. According to Mojo, the judge is biased. No? Time will tell.
No, he wasn’t biased, just informed. Judge Nevas held public office prior to his appointment to the federal bench. He was galled by Newton’s cocky attitude: “I am the Moses of my people!”
I’m disappointed but not surprised. Ernie Newton just couldn’t think with moral clarity. I’m saddened he will be going back to prison.
What would a proper sentence for Ernie be?
Andy, why do you assume Ernie is already cooked on these charges based on the information the state has released? Newton’s campaign finance charges in 2005 were brought by the feds. Maybe state officials believe they have something to prove? As criminal cases go, the state moved quickly on this arrest. For state law enforcement officials Newton is a high-profile catch and these kinds of cases drive straight to the top of their portfolio. Cops don’t care about his influence, or lack of, in Hartford when he served. Newton’s a lightning rod and cops like charging lightning rods.
Lennie, my post got out of order. My comments were meant for Mojo and the bias he spoke about. As far as this latest arrest I have no idea if Newton is innocent or guilty. Time will tell.
*** Judge Nevas (ex-pol) was galled by Newton’s media attention comment he was the “Moses of his people,” nothing to do with the case mind you but apparently the judge felt strongly about the case and handed out a max type of sentence to Newton! You may say different strokes for different folks but compared to other white pols (right or wrong) convicted under the same type of case, Judge Nevas legally socked it to Newton! *** RESEARCH OTHER SUCH CASES ***
Now it’s the cops’ fault. I get it.
Jimfox, I have a question for you. Newton attorney’s Crosland said typically if indiscretions are found during a campaign audit, the state elections board will levy fines or civil remedies.
“We don’t understand why Mr. Newton is being dragged before the criminal courts under these circumstances,” Crosland said, adding that Newton’s past experience made him “vigilant” about making sure everything was done above the board. Jimfox, what do think about that?
Ron, weren’t the Federal charges that convicted Newton pretty much the same as what the EEC is currently concerned about?
Bob, the state charges are different. In the federal case Newton used campaign funds for personal use that triggered a tax charge. So far the state has not alleged that. The state charges center on Newton manufacturing $500 in contributions to qualify for public financing.
According to the warrant, Newton was $500 short of the $15,000 he needed to raise in private contributions to qualify for the Citizens Election Program grant. Police claim Newton had five campaign workers sign cards stating they had contributed to the campaign when in fact they had not, the warrant states.
Ron, it’s just a fast way the SEEC can wash its hands. I totally agree with Newton’s attorney.
I’d like to make a comment not related to any criminal charges and that has to do with performance. With all the resources the East End has: harbor, industry, Pleasure Beach, Newfield Park, high percentage of owner occupants, proximity to highways and no public housing–WHY does Stratford Avenue look like it does???
Loathe as I am to defend Ernie, there is one question that needs to be answered. Why did the state pick this case for criminal prosecution while declining to do so in other cases (a forgery case in the Valley a couple of years ago comes to mind)?
Great point, Phil. The campaign finance complaint Mary-Jane Foster’s campaign supporter Tom Kelly brought against William Beccaro and his political action committee in 2011 that led to a $5,000 civil penalty for Mayor Bill Finch’s former legal counsel was far more compelling than what the state so far has shared about the Newton case. No criminal charges were issued in the Beccaro case.
*** THANK YOU LENNIE FOR POINTING OUT THIS SLAP ON THE HAND TYPE OF JUSTICE! THERE’S MORE TO THIS CASE THAN MEETS THE BLOG EYE I’M SURE! ***
Beccaro is neither a felon convicted of corruption nor was he on probation for his offenses. Anyone give that rid bit any thought?
*** Neither was Newton his first go around with the justice system, no? ***
I’m wondering if this a shot over the bow of the DTC’s calamari boat …
Lennie, why did they charge Ernie Newton and not his Treasurer Loretta Williams? Did Williams appoint Ernie Newton as a campaign donation solicitor? Isn’t the treasurer responsible for the collection and control of contributions?
If SEEC investigators found 5 people who claim they did not donate any money to the Newton camp, then we can assume each one of these five individuals must be among the list of $100 contributors.
A contribution was solicited from me by Bob the Troll Walsh for Gomes for Senate. I did fill and sign the solicitation form and gave $10. If I were to turn around and claim I did not donate $10 to the Gomes campaign, but filled the form, it would be difficult for the Gomes campaign to prove I did in fact donate the $10.
Several months ago I was looking at a certain campaign report and noticed one name of a $5 donor. I happened to know this person and when I showed her the document, she stated she NEVER gave any amount to this campaign. She then wondered where and who has all her personal information written on the contribution section. One name did come up and it just happens to be one of the key players of the campaign in question.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact Newton ordered one of his endorsers not to cooperate with the investigators. Furthermore, Newton is alleged to have fraudulently obtained State campaign money he did not legitimately qualify to receive. Time will tell. No?
yahooy, what do you think about what Lennie Grimaldi wrote, “The campaign finance complaint Mary-Jane Foster’s campaign supporter Tom Kelly brought against William Beccaro and his political action committee in 2011 that led to a $5,000 civil penalty for Mayor Bill Finch’s former legal counsel was far more compelling than what the state so far has shared about the Newton case. No criminal charges were issued in the Beccaro case.”
I genuinely hope the idiot does not have to go to jail. Without having the benefit of knowing what his accusers know, it does seem to me they are piling it on. Witness tampering is serious as is obtaining campaign funds from the state in a fraudulent manner. I’m having fun with Newton’s latest folly because I absolutely do not think that man should ever hold public office. I’m curious, Ron, why do you?
yahooy, I like Ernie Newton, I saw him in church Sunday and told him I will pray for him. I did not vote for Ernie, I voted for Ed Gomes, and said to Ernie he should have run for his old State Rep. seat. I also feel the state is piling it on but yahooy you seem to hate Ernie Newton and I feel that is a bit much.
Hate? No. I hate no one and deeply resent your insensitive comment. Newton is a jerk. His community deserves far more than he is capable of providing. I don’t have to hate someone to declare that person is too stupid to assume a responsible government position. I believe he is a man of no character; a philistine content to take from the teat of people of need. “Moses?” Hardly. Moses sacrificed much to free his people from terrible bondage.
yahooy, thank you, you have made my point but don’t be so sensitive.
yahooy,
While you are commenting on the latest Newton situation, and understand some patience might be needed before the “facts” become more clear, can you perhaps give some thought to what each of us as local voters can reasonably expect in terms of behavior from an elected City Council person?
What two or three regular and dependable activities may we assume are understood and agreeable to Council candidates? For instance,
* I will attend all regularly scheduled and Special Council meetings.
** I will attend all Committee Meetings to which I am appointed.
*** I shall respond to letters, emails and phone messages from constituents, as well as those from the public at large dealing with matters on Committees to which I am assigned.
**** If I decide to use any of the public stipend available of $9,000 annually, I shall authorize the finance department to make my entire file available to the public without by simple request including amount, date spent, payee and explanation of how this fits into my learning as a municipal legislator.
***** I shall review the information presented at all Council and Committee meetings to be prepared for comments, questions and voting. Additionally, I will review the exhibits and ask for explanations where the info is not completely understood.
These are just some basic thoughts and assumptions. Any other ideas you have up your sleeve to give guidance and direction to those elected? Time will tell.
Elected? More like selected.