The trial of Middlebury’s former fire chief, Paul Perrotti, continued today in federal court in New Haven. He is charged with taking funds belonging to the town.
The defense spent the day presenting to the jury 137 of the photos Perrotti took Sunday, July 12, at the Middlebury Fire House on Tucker Hill Road, the West Side station on Southford Road and in the trailer full of fire department equipment stored at the Middlebury Public Works yard.
During a court recess, Perrotti said of the series of photos, “I’m sorry to put you through this. But this is my life.”
As each photo came on the screen, Perrotti responded to questions from defense attorney Martin Minnella by explaining where the photo was taken, what was shown in the photo and what work he performed related to what was in the photo. Perrotti, dressed in a dark suit, light blue shirt and red tie, spoke from the witness stand in the courtroom on Church Street.
The photos showed various cables, electrical conduits, electric outlets, recessed lights, security cameras, a training board, dimmer switches and more. Perrotti, a licensed electrician, explained the work he had done on each item. In some cases, he did all of the work; in others, he had replaced failed parts.
The defense counsel told Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer about 14 photos remain to be shown to the jury Thursday. After the jury left the room at 4 p.m., the judge discussed tomorrow’s expected proceedings with the attorneys. Minnella said he expects to examine two witnesses and present four character witnesses.
The government attorneys, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah P. Karwan, said the door had been opened for them to inquire as to Perrotti’s motive and modus operandi and they also will address his truthfulness, integrity and professional conduct. Closing arguments are expected tomorrow, too, although it’s likely they will come towards the end of the court day, which usually is about 4 p.m.
Before everyone left for the day, the judge reviewed with the attorneys his proposed charge to the jury. He listened to each side’s objections, in some cases to the way he worded the charge and in other cases to words that he omitted. The most opposing views revolved around the definition of “employee,” with the government saying that knowing someone got a W-2 was sufficient and the defense pointing out the definition under common law includes whether the person can be hired or fired and whether you give orders to the person that they have to follow. The judge said, “I’ll give thought to everything that was suggested today.” He is expected to present his revised charge to the attorneys in the morning.
