<xmp> <body> </xmp>

THE CASE AGAINST JOHN MCGOWAN: Trial day two (or send in the clowns)

Thursday, August 04, 2011
Time: 6:15 PM

UPDATE 6:30 PM: You can find most of the cast of clowns McGowan used as character witnesses at this site.

UPDATE 6:00 PM: Well, lets just say that McGowan's Sovereign Nation whackos didn't do him any favors today.

I'll have a rundown on everything but Register-Citizen's Jason Siedzik pretty much summed up everything that happened today in court.

John McGowan’s defense began Thursday in Litchfield Superior Court with a turn towards the forensic — and the political.

The former Danbury mayoral candidate and current Bethel public access television host, accused of sexually assaulting a former girlfriend at his home in October 2008, began presenting his defense after the prosecution rested early in the day’s proceedings. If convicted of first-degree sexual assault, McGowan could face up to 20 years in prison.

McGowan’s defense revolves around the question of consent. His accuser, addressed as Jane Doe, testified that a “tension-breaker” game of strip poker turned into increasingly violent oral sex. Doe said she tried to escape, only to be allegedly restrained and forcibly sodomized by McGowan. While McGowan does not deny that the two had sex, he said the sex was consensual.

Forensic biologist Jane Cordraro, of the state’s forensic lab in Meriden, testified about the presence of blood or semen on several pieces of evidence, including toilet paper and articles of clothing, submitted to the lab in March 2010. While Cordraro testified that she did not find sperm or seminal fluid on the clothing, a piece of toilet paper submitted to the lab tested positive for seminal fluid.

Cordraro could not identify the origin of the semen, nor could she state whether it came from consensual sex. However, Cordraro said it is not her job to test for DNA. Instead, her job is to use her training to find certain fluids, and if they are present, those pieces of evidence are forwarded to a DNA analyst. In this case, the DNA analyst to test the samples, Christine Roy, will be called as a rebuttal witness by the prosecution.

“In forensic biology,” Cordraro said, “I just identify bodily fluids, then submit it to the DNA section.”

Cordraro said that two samples taken from the toilet paper tested positive for one sperm cell and a protein in seminal fluid. McGowan asked Cordraro during redirect if she could identify whether the sperm or fluid came from non-consensual sex, but Cordraro said that judgment call was “out of my expertise.”

Another of McGowan’s witnesses, therapist and holistic health counselor Chris Salonia, was disallowed as an expert witness following questions from senior assistant state’s attorney David Shannon about her training. Salonia is currently waiting to testify as an expert witness in a civil suit against the estate of Dr. George Reardon, who allegedly molested hundreds of boys while working as a doctor, and St. Francis Hospital, where Dr. Reardon worked as an endocrinologist.

Responding to questions about her background as a therapist, Salonia claimed that “Western medicine has not found the way to healing” when it comes to sexual assault trauma. Instead, Salonia described pharmaceutical remedies as “chemotherapy” in contrast to her practice of rebirthing and emotional freedom techniques.

“Prozac and alcohol are chemotherapy?” asked Shannon.

“Yes, they’re chemical therapy,” Salonia responded.

Salonia was eventually permitted as a character witness after Judge James P. Ginocchio ruled that her experience treating post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as drug and alcohol dependency, would not make her suited to be an expert witness. Additionally, Salonia stated she would testify that the injuries described by Doe were inconsistent with sexual assault, but Ginocchio ruled that was a medical question for medical experts.

“What I would be testifying to is when you’re sexually assaulted from behind, it’s not how she described,” Salonia said. “You would need to have multiple arms, and John McGowan would need to have a penis like a boa constrictor.”

After attesting to McGowan’s character, though, Salonia’s testimony quickly veered into the political arena. Salonia and McGowan both belong to the Republic of the United States of America, as do the three character witnesses following Salonia. Shannon asked about Salonia’s membership during cross-examination — one of the references Salonia cited for McGowan’s character was a trip the two took to the Republic of the United States of America’s Continental Congress in Utah — touching off a prolonged discussion of the group’s beliefs.

Salonia asserted the Republic’s belief that the Constitution was replaced by former President Abraham Lincoln in 1861, transforming the country into a “corporation.” Salonia and McGowan are both “senators” in the “Connecticut Republic,” one of 50 groups claiming to be part of the Republic of the United States of America. Considering the state of the Constitution, Salonia stated, the Connecticut judicial system has no jurisdiction in the case, because according to “the original Constitution,” McGowan’s accuser must bring the charges against McGowan, not the state of Connecticut.

“The state is accusing me of sexually assaulting the state?” asked McGowan of Salonia, who responded in the affirmative.

McGowan continued by asking Salonia if the case was consequently unconstitutional, since all of the paperwork for the case read “the state of Connecticut vs. John McGowan.” Salonia concurred.

“They’re not the injured party,” Salonia said, “so they have no jurisdiction.”

Ginocchio promptly shut down McGowan’s redirect questions about the Republic’s beliefs, but fellow sovereign citizens testified to McGowan’s character. Some of McGowan’s fellow Connecticut Republic members, including character witness Deborah Jones, make money by selling health products online and through multi-level marketing companies.

“You guys make money together by selling health products online?” Shannon asked Sheri Snow, another witness. Snow responded that “I’m not a part of that.”

Only two potential witnesses remained after Michelle Scalpi, the last of McGowan’s character witnesses, testified — DNA analyst Roy, who will be called as a rebuttal witness – and McGowan himself. Scalpi finished testifying just before noon and the six-member jury was excused to discuss the rest of McGowan’s witnesses.

However, McGowan was still undecided about whether or not he would testify, requesting time to mull over the decision. Ginocchio gave him one more day to present his jury charge, but fully expected to complete testimony the morning of August 9. The trial is well ahead of schedule, and rather than call for a lunch recess when court would immediately adjourn for the day, Ginocchio instead dismissed the jury for the day, adjourning court until August 9 at 9:30 a.m. Closing arguments are expected no later than August 10.

In short, McGowan's character witnesses are just as just as whacky as he is and I'm stunned that Judge Ginocchio didn't come down harder when McDummy and "Senator" Salonia started their babbling about the Constitution and their "out there" beliefs.

Since court is adjourned till Next Tuesday, I'm going to take my time going through my notes and do a full recap on the last two days and my thoughts on the trial to date.

UPDATE 1:00 PM: This case is going at warp speed and I'm thinking the whole thing might be over a lot sooner than planned.

I arrived at the courthouse at 12:00 and today's proceedings were just about over. Luckily, a reporter for the Register-Citizen was on hand and got me up to speed on what happened today. I'll update everyone on what happened today later (give a little while to transcribe my notes).

I'm running a bit behind schedule so I'll be at the Litchfield Courthouse around 11:30 today.

It's reported that the prosecution should wrap up it's case today. Unfortunately, I can't provide live blog updates from inside the courtroom but I'll give an update during the recess (around 1:00 PM).

posted by ctblogger at 6:15 PM | Permalink|


Add a comment

© 2017 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.


Lowest Gas Prices in Danbury
Danbury Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

make money online blogger templates

Danbury City Charter
Danbury Code of Ordinances
Robert's Rules of Order


Danbury 2005 election results
Danbury 2007 election results
Danbury 2009 election results
Danbury 2011 election results
Danbury 2013 election results
Danbury 2015 election results
City of Danbury calendar

The Mercurial
Danbury News Times
Danbury Patch
Danbury Daily Voice
Tribuna Newspaper
Danbury El Canillita
(Spanish edition)

Danbury El Canillita
(English translation)

Comunidade News
(Portuguese edition)

Comunidade News
(English translation)

On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.

The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.

Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.

Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.



Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint

Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park


Dunkin Donuts logo