
Prosecutors are opposing efforts to apply New York's marital privilege law to same-sex partners, arguing that a man charged in a school embezzlement scandal can testify against his companion. Stephen Signorelli, charged in the theft of $11.2 million from the wealthy Roslyn school district on Long Island, has asked a judge to prevent Frank Tassone, his longtime companion and the district's former superintendent, from testifying against him. Signorelli is among a half-dozen people accused of participating in the theft over several years.
Marital privilege means communications between married people may not be used in a criminal prosecution. The Nassau County district attorney's office argued in a response filed Monday that the request should be denied, since New York State does not recognize same-sex civil unions or marriages. That argument "is not intended as a commentary on what the law ought to be, but rather what it is," the filing said. Prosecutors also contended that marital privilege could not be applied to joint participants in a crime who are trying to hide their activities, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.
Signorelli, of Manhattan, is fighting charges that he stole at least $219,000 from the public school district as part of a broader series of schemes. Tassone pleaded guilty this year to stealing at least $2 million from the district between 1996 and 2002. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, which meant he might have to take the stand in Signorelli's trial. Tassone will spend four to 12 years in prison and will pay back an estimated $2 million. If convicted at trial, he could have faced up to 25 years.
While Signorelli said in court papers that the two "have been loving partners for 33 years," Tassone's lawyer, Edward Jenks, has described the relationship as a platonic one. Signorelli's lawyer, Kenneth Weinstein, said the two were in a "spousal relationship in every sense of the word." (AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.