Konstantinos 鈥淜osta鈥� Diamantis, 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 former state deputy budget director, took the witness stand in federal court in Bridgeport on Thursday in an effort to fend off allegations that he used his position overseeing the state鈥檚 school building office to solicit tens of thousands of dollars in bribes from construction contractors.
For several hours, Diamantis testified about his past work on school construction projects in 黑料吃瓜网 and his relationship with three construction officials, all of whom have previously admitted in court to paying him bribes.
Federal prosecutors spent the first six days of the criminal trial presenting evidence that Diamantis had received payments from two officials with Acranom Masonry, which won multimillion-dollar contracts to help build schools in Hartford and Tolland.
And they showed the jury payroll records that proved that Diamantis鈥� daughter was hired by Construction Advocacy Professionals, another firm that secured work on projects in Tolland, Hartford and New Britain.
Diamantis and his defense attorney, Norm Pattis, sought to explain away the emails, text messages and other direct evidence presented in the case. And they attempted to reshape the narrative that prosecutors put forward: that Diamantis eagerly traded his influence over school building projects for bribes and other favors from construction contractors.
鈥淢r. Diamantis will tell you he never took a bribe,鈥� Pattis told the jury an opening statement. 鈥淎nd he will tell you he never used undue influence on school construction projects.鈥�
The only goal that Diamantis had as the head of 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 school construction program, Pattis argued, was to save taxpayers money.
鈥淗e gave everything he had for the job he loved,鈥� Pattis said.
When he took the stand, Diamantis admitted that he accepted $70,000 from Acranom鈥檚 president Sal Monarca and vice president John Duffy, which the text messages in the case suggested. But he said that money was not for helping the company win school construction contracts.
Instead, Diamantis said, he collected a 鈥渇ee鈥� for introducing Acranom鈥檚 leaders to the executives at D鈥橝mato Construction, whom Diamantis is close friends with.
鈥淐ontractors are always looking to expand their network,鈥� Diamantis said.
鈥淚 made an introduction between John Duffy and D鈥橝mato construction,鈥� he added.
Diamantis, who previously served in the legislature and practiced law, told the jury that he personally researched the state ethics code to determine if collecting that type of 鈥渇ee鈥� crossed the line.
That testimony stood in stark contrast to what Duffy and Monarca told the jury just days before. Both of them admitted under questioning that the money they delivered to Diamantis at a Dunkin鈥� Donuts, at his home and in a restaurant bathroom were bribes that were meant to win them contracts on school construction projects.
On multiple occassions, Diamantis acknowledged receving cash from the two men, but he said it didn鈥檛 happen in the locations that Duffy and Monarca claimed.
Diamantis, who looked directly at the jury as he testified, also challenged the prosecution鈥檚 assertion that he ruled the state鈥檚 school construction office with an iron fist. And he repeatedly told the jury that he had no control over which companies got hired on school construction projects.
He said that decision was up to local officials in 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 towns and cities.
鈥淭he state of 黑料吃瓜网 is not party to any of those contracts,鈥� Diamantis said.
That testimony ran counter to what several local officials in Tolland and Hartford told the jury last week. The head of Hartford鈥檚 School Building Committee and the superintendent of Tolland schools said Diamantis told the municipalities which companies to hire in several instances.
They said they went along with those instructions because of the grip that Diamantis had on state funding for school construction projects.
At times, Diamantis鈥� answers to his attorney鈥檚 questions turned into history lessons about 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 school construction policies or veered into stories about his time running the school construction program.
At one point, Diamantis named all of the people he managed in the school construction office. At another, Pattis asked him questions about rats that were 鈥渂iting children鈥� at the Burns Latino Studies Academy in Hartford.
Some of the answers stretched on for so long that prosecutors complained to the judge during a break that Diamantis鈥� testimony was irrelevant to the trial, and they said he seemed to be 鈥渇ilibustering鈥� in order to drag out the trial for some reason.
And when Diamantis began testifying about the rats at Burns, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill cut in and told Pattis to drop the line of questioning.
Prosecutors did not get a chance to question Diamantis on Thursday and didn鈥檛 have the opportunity to ask him about the voluminous number of text messages, emails or financial records they swept up as part of their investigation.
The two assistant U.S. Attorneys who are leading the case spent most of the afternoon taking notes to prepare for their upcoming cross-examination of Diamantis.
Pattis tried to get ahead of some of the questions that federal prosecutors are likely to ask, including inquiries about several text messages and a voicemail in which Diamantis complained to Duffy about not having enough money.
Diamantis agreed he was in need of money at the time because he had child support, alimony, school tuition and a wedding to pay for. And he admitted that he complained about those money issues to Duffy.
Pattis also asked Diamantis about a communication in which Duffy suggested that Diamantis wanted to be paid as a consultant with an 鈥渁nnual fee.鈥�
Diamantis did not deny that he told Duffy that, but he said it was a 鈥渢ongue in cheek鈥� comment.
Diamantis鈥� daughter, Anastasia, was also called as a defense witness on Thursday to testify about the work she performed as an administrative assistant for Antonietta DiBenedetto Roy, the owner of Construction Advocacy Professionals, a firm that won several contracts for school projects in Tolland, Hartford and New Britain.
Under questioning from Pattis, Anastasia Diamantis said it was Roy who approached her and asked her to apply for the job at her firm.
But under cross-examination, she acknowledged to prosecutors that it was her father who encouraged Roy to contact her for the administrative assistant job. She also acknowledged that she asked Roy to pay her $20 per hour, but Roy chose to pay her $45 per hour instead.
Roy previously told the jury she paid a higher rate in order to keep Diamantis happy and to gain work on school construction projects.
During his turn on the stand, Diamantis denied he had anything to do with getting his daughter hired at the construction company. He said that was solely Roy鈥檚 choice.
And he reiterated at several points that he never used his position as one of the highest-ranking officials in the state government to personally benefit himself or his family.
Diamantis told jurors that the federal investigation into his work within the state government had turned his life and his family鈥檚 into 鈥渁 living hell.鈥�
鈥淢y family and myself have been dragged through the mud,鈥� he said.