Scott Greene, Monroe County DA
Office of Conviction Integrity
Dear Mr. Green:
On March 21, 2023, I received your UNDATED letter, (postmarked March 15, 2023) and as I had expected, considering that the Chairman of your unit was one of my original adversaries, I never expected to have my conviction vacated. However, I was advised by an attorney to still file so that your office could not come back later and claim that I never applied. In any event I was curious as to how you would arrive at your decision. Perhaps before continuing I should mention that the same attorney told me that I was among less than 1% of defendants who had the stamina, ability, and wherewithal to prepare such a formidable defense on my own. Nevertheless, I am not an attorney.
Additionally, after a year went by from my original application, and my follow up letter of September 20, 2022, that you finally responded to, informing me that you had already began a preliminary investigation. I both wrote and called you several times since, but without a response. It was only after you became aware that I was interviewed by the FBI that you finally responded via telephone. In turn, on March 1, 2023, I followed up with a letter addressing your comments and questions, addressing the federal issues, including violations of the 5th amendment violation of due process, the 6th, and 14th amendments, right to confront my accusers. And most significantly, the mandatory CPL 310.30 reversal of my conviction as a result of a concealed jury note. Additionally, the denial of my Miranda right to contact my attorney was confirmed by the sheriff’s investigator at the August 31, 2009, Huntley hearing.
You state that in my letter dated October 13, 2022, I claimed that I was wrongfully convicted by errors of the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel. Mr. Greene, with the exception of the jury note issue, it was attorney Murante* who addressed those numerous issues, and in writing, as pointed out on my website. But then also in writing, he informs me that I have little chance of prevailing in any Monroe County Court. He then, without the required permission of the court, backs out of completing the CPL 440.10 and refunds half his fee, recommending that I apply it towards out of town counsel. When I ask for an explanation, he responds that it’s against his best interest to continue to represent me…And that concealed jury note #1, requesting the exhibits, stands alone requiring mandatory reversal of my conviction. There are no exceptions. Yet in responding to my request to the county court for a Reconstruction Hearing, ADA Stephen X. O’Brien falsely tells Judge Dinolfo, that a jury’s request for the exhibits is not substantive. What would any reasonably intelligent person conclude?
In your undated decision you state that CIU requires clear and convincing evidence that an applicant was actually innocent or wrongfully convicted. “A person is wrongfully convicted when there exists some infirmity (sickness) to the trial process, which leads the District Attorney to lose confidence in the integrity of the convictions.” (Or in my case, or more accurately, in your case, the public’s loss of confidence in the integrity of the District Attorney’s office.)
The basis for your denial:
Testimony of two jailhouse informants, the primary one exposed lying when he stated he was not promised anything in return for his testimony and then later permitted to provide replacement testimony for an inaudible wire CD, allegedly detailing the details of the murder for hire plot. This is for obvious reasons, a violation of both state and federal laws as well as common sense. Yet Trial judge, Patricia Marks, allows that CD and replacement testimony into evidence. And as for prosecutor Dunham, may I inquire as to why he replaced Casey Spenser, only several days prior to my trial, and why his employment was terminated shortly afterwards?
Related to the above a letter I allegedly wrote, detailing the reasons why I wanted my ex-wife murdered, Monroe County Clerk, Jamie Romeo, has now confirmed that letter to be non-existent. This after previously confirming that the many, many letters I allegedly wrote to my ex-wife, Judy Nanni, had testified were the basis of her identifying my handwriting in the prosecutor’s exhibits, were also non-existent, thus exposing her perjured testimony. Defense counsel Damelio never cross examined her as far as those alleged letters. This even though prosecutor Dunham failed to provide copies of those letters to him as instructed by the Court at the October 16, 2009 Sandoval hearing. And quite significantly, on what basis was Damelio appointed defense counsel? I did not qualify for nor request appointed counsel.
You refer to the sketch showing where my ex-wife lived. However, the version provided to the defense differed from the one admitted as evidence, having Deputy Tom Doherty’s and Donovan Forbes, signatures deleted, as well as additions added in someone else’s handwriting. That diagram was drawn for Dep Doherty on December 19, 2008, when after passing out the mail, he asked me if my ex-wife was still living in our marital home. After I responded to where she was currently living, Doherty said he had previously lived in that neighborhood. The illustration was a rough sketch of the location of her residence, later to have been confirmed as inaccurate, thus in addition to the inaudible cd, nullifying that sketch from evidence.
When I asked defense counsel Joseph Damelio to address the above to Dep Doherty, he failed to do so, telling me, “He would probably lie.” Even if he did, nothing ventured, nothing lost.
The testimony of then ADA Krista Karle, only helped me towards a future reversal of a 2005 stalking conviction. This based on Karle’s statement at the time that when she entered Flex Gym, she saw Ms Nanni inside, when prosecutor Dunham asked Karle, “When you went inside the gym, did you see Nanni there?” “NO, I DID NOT.” As such I now request review of that conviction as well. And to make matters far worse, Karle was testifying as a lay witness, not as an ADA. Yet impermissibly, asked by prosecutor Dunham, what her position was with the DA’s office, she repeats five times over, that she was the supervisor of the domestic violence bureau. (Transcript T336-337) Again, impermissible, the only purpose to prejudice the jury against me.
You also neglected to address possibly the greatest error of all, prosecutor Dunham at the opening of my trial, converting the actual charge, conspiracy, to a non-existent kidnapping, a far more heinous crime, then carrying on that theme throughout the trial without correction by the judge nor defense counsel, further prejudicing the jury against me. Oh, and the 2nd charge, solicitation, for some inexplicable reason the jury also found me guilty of that charge as well, even though that charge had never been addressed by any party during the trial.
Contrary to your statement that defense counsel was permitted vigorous cross examination, according to attorney David Murante, not so. Moreover the 4th Appellate Dept; agreed with Murante but called it a harmless error. Same as to the court preventing cross examination as to their extensive criminal backgrounds. Simply acknowledging that they were inmates, without stating what they were convicted of including sex crimes, does not cut mustard. People V. Stuart Dizak is the perfect example of why many states as well as most civilized nations forbid the testimony of jailhouse informants.
With further regard to that court, my two primary adversaries, Joseph Valentino and his “friend” of many years, Elizabeth C. Clarke, had become members of that court. According to the United States Supreme Court, that court should have honored my request that they recuse themselves. This as there cannot be even a hint of bias as it reflects on the credibility of the court in its entirety.
The above perhaps also explains that court’s denial of my Error Coram Nobis with regards to the two jury notes, ignoring their own prior CPL 310.30 rulings mandating reversal of my conviction. This was followed by the Court of Appeals, Judge Leslie Stein, denying my appeal of the same, without comment. This is when that very same court had in numerous cases, confirmed mandatory reversal of conviction…And the most noted CPL 310.30 reversal in its 40+ year history, is Judge Patricia Marks, People V. Kahley, making the same errors that she did in my trial. And may I inquire as to why on December 1st, of the year following my trial, judge Marks, without any fanfare, after 25 years on the bench, announces that she will be retiring at the end of the month? Additionally, the unintentional disclosure of concealed jury note #1 is classified as newly discovered evidence, further grounds for the vacating of my conviction.
Jailhouse informant Forbes, in his replacement testimony for the inaudible wire recording, testified that the reason I wanted my ex-wife, Judy Nanni, murdered was that she got me for a lot of money. Totally untrue, we had a prenup that only paid her $50,000 over years, paid in full in 2005, four years prior to the charges against me. In 2001 she filed and lost a very expensive lawsuit to break that prenup and lost. A few days later she filed false charges against me in an unsuccessful attempt at blackmailing me into paying her legal fees. The end result, a supervising ADA from your office came into Judge Rainbow Morse’s court and informed him that Ms Nanni had withdrawn the charges. Who was the vindictive one with motive to later falsely testify against me?
Your reference to the jury’s conclusion. Hell, based upon the testimony and evidence unlawfully presented at my trial, I would have convicted myself!
Your other allegations are superfluous and do not require a response or are responded to in my website. Once I was made aware of most of the violations and irregularities, I wrote to DA Doorley, informing her that there were over 40 violations of law by the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel, perhaps explaining why she appointed former judge, Joseph Valentino, chairman of your unit. There was a total disregard for the integrity of the legal process, as well as my constitutional rights, both during my trial and the aftermath.
To quote your 2nd last paragraph, “Arguments presented by counsel must be based on the evidence and be fairly presented.” That applies to both sides. And what legitimate evidence? What fairness? And in that regard allow me to quote Ashwal, 39AD NY2d 105, It is fundamental that the District Attorney may not refer to matters not in evidence or call upon the jury to draw conclusions which are not fairly inferable from the evidence. Above all he should not lead the jury away from the actual issues by drawing irrelevant and inflammatory conclusions which have a decided tendency to prejudice the jury against the defendant. And according to Ashwal, the court had a responsibility to correct the prosecutor’s knowingly, false statement to the jury that Dizak kidnapped his ex-wife.
Your remaining comments are either superfluous and do not require a response or are addressed on my website. Mr. Green, have you given any thought as to the political fallout as well as who would be made the scapegoat if certain foreign governments and media became aware of my trial and its aftermath? People v. Stuart Dizak is indeed the most corrupt prosecutorial/judicial proceeding in American history.
*By coincidence, Murante prevailed in a similar case early on in his career, (1984) Mott, 94 AD2d 415, The prosecutor’s persistent inflammatory remarks, accusations against defense counsel, repeated efforts to put matters not in evidence, improper statements throughout the trial that defendant was involved in another crime, portions of the recorded conversations were inaudible, violated defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial. All applied in my case.
Your truly,
Stuart Dizak
And to add a little humor to this sordid affair, it is said that a criminal defendant could find out if he had a good lawyer, was if by and small chance, after he died, he went to heaven, if he saw his lawyer there, he would know that his lawyer was a failure on earth.
2005 STALKING CONVICTION OF STUART DIZAK
March 31, 2023
Sometimes things are not what they appear to be:
On December 21, 2005, upon the recommendation of my attorney, David Murante, I pled guilty to a charge of stalking in the second degree. This was the first instance in western New York of a recently passed stalking statute. On January 11, 2005, I had gone to Flex Gym to drop off my ex-wife, Judy Nanni’s final prenup payment with the gym owner, as I had done with the prior payment. This was with both his and my ex-wife’s permission. (We had both been members for a number of years.) My plea was based upon the prosecutor, Heather Parker, informing Murante that another ADA, Krista Karle, told her that she saw me standing in front of Flex Gym; further stating that when she entered the gym, she saw Ms. Nanni inside. * And with ADA Karle testifying against me at a trial, I would stand little chance of prevailing. Moreover, according to ADA Parker if I did take the plea offer all I would be sentenced to would be probation.
Not quite, for later, at my 2009 conspiracy trial, when that prosecutor, Matthew Dunham, asked ADA Karle, “When you went into the gym did you see Ms. Nanni there?” Answer, “No I did not.” I had pled guilty based upon a lie by prosecutor Parker. The DA’s appellate counsel, ADA Casey Spenser, had stated that falsehood twice over, in her brief to the Fourth Appellate Dept, opposing my appeal of the conspiracy conviction. (Pages 6 and 15) She then added that my sentence of 8-16 years flowed from that conviction. (Otherwise, the maximum would have been 4-8 years.) Regardless, if Ms. Nanni was not there, I could not have been guilty of stalking her.
The reason for ADA Parker’s duplicity quickly became apparent, for unknown to me, ADA Parker had pre-arranged for a reporter to be in the courtroom, and the following day, a feature news article. Two weeks later, Ms. Parker left her position with the DA and went to work for a private law firm.
*ADA Parker had also told Murante that Ms. Nanni had filed a police report the same evening as the incident. That also turned out to be untrue. Once again, according to Monroe County Records, there was no such report.