Will Kosta Diamantis get jail time? Judge gets wildly different asks

What type of punishment should a high-ranking public official receive for soliciting bribes from construction companies, fixing government contracts for those businesses and repeatedly lying in order to cover up those crimes?

That’s what a federal judge in Bridgeport will need to decide next week during the sentencing hearing for Konstantinos Diamantis, Connecticut’s former deputy budget director and the one-time leader of the state’s school construction office.

U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill has been presented with two wildly different proposals for how to resolve the federal corruption case, which resulted in a jury convicting Diamantis on 21 charges of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and lying to federal investigators.

Diamantis’ defense attorney, Norm Pattis, asked the judge last week to sentence his client to home confinement and community service, as well as prohibiting him from holding public office or working in any government setting again.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are requesting that Diamantis, who is also facing another corruption trial in December, be sentenced to 10 to 12 years in federal prison to pay for his crimes and to send a message to other government officials who might consider profiting off their public office. And they pointed out that length of prison sentence is what the federal sentencing guidelines call for.

The sentencing memorandums filed by Pattis and the U.S. Attorney’s Office present two starkly different descriptions of Diamantis, who served for 12 years a Democratic lawmaker before being appointed by Gov. Ned Lamont to run the state’s school construction program.

To bolster the case for home confinement, Pattis portrayed Diamantis as an aging family man who has already been severely punished for his role in the multi-year bribery scheme.

“The public consequences here are unmistakable. A former legislator, attorney, military veteran, and senior state official has been prosecuted, tried, convicted, publicly disgraced, financially ruined, stripped of his profession, and permanently excluded from positions of public trust. Those consequences convey a powerful warning: abuse of governmental authority can destroy a lifetime of professional accomplishment and financial security,” Pattis wrote.

Pattis also noted that Diamantis, who is 70 years old, could have his state pension revoked or reduced as a result of his conviction, and if he is sentenced to prison, he won’t be able to collect on Social Security.

“A lengthy sentence would likely return Mr. Diamantis to the community at a greatly advanced age, without assets, a profession, stable income, or a dependable support
structure,” Pattis wrote.

David Novick, one of the U.S. Attorneys who led the prosecution, cast Diamantis in a completely different light.

Novick described Diamantis as a brash, money-hungry state official, who used his “nearly unfettered control” over Connecticut’s school building program to bully and intimidate construction contractors and local officials alike.

The federal prosecutor also reminded the judge of the mountain of evidence that was presented at trial, including text messages and voicemails in which Diamantis demanded bribes from two of the school construction contractors he oversaw: Acranom Masonry and Construction Advocacy Professionals.

Novick recounted how those contractors delivered cash bribes to Diamantis at coffee shops, a Hartford restaurant and at his home in Farmington, and how one of them hired his daughter.

“Diamantis’s principal crime was a years-long, brazen breach of public trust by a senior state official who used his government office to line his own pockets by extorting businesspeople bidding to provide valuable services to state taxpayers on multimillion dollar school construction contracts,” the prosecutors wrote.

“Diamantis solicited, cajoled, intimidated, and outright threatened two contractors,” he added.

Novick told the judge that the seriousness of Diamantis’ crimes could not be overlooked, and he took issue with Pattis’ argument that Diamantis should be credited for the decades he spent as a public official, which ended as a result of the federal criminal investigation.

He also called out Diamantis for claiming to be a military veteran.

“While he refers to himself as a ‘military veteran,’ the (presentence investigation report) clarifies that Diamantis served less than a month in Officer Candidate School before being honorably discharged due to a knee injury.”

Diamantis’ request to avoid a federal prison sentence is even more noteworthy, Novick argued, given that he has yet to show any level of remorse for his crimes.

The federal prosecutor pointed to Diamantis’ conviction on several charges related to lying to federal agents and Diamantis’ testimony during the trial in which he denied participating in any bribery or extortion scheme.

“Diamantis’s continued insistence, in the face of overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary, that he has done nothing wrong points to a serious flaw in his own moral and ethical calculus, which merits significant consideration by the court,” Novick wrote.

“Even now, in anticipation of sentencing, Diamantis has offered no acknowledgment of responsibility for his crimes,” he added.

More recently, Diamantis has sought a federal pardon from President Donald Trump.

Despite that request, Pattis told the judge that Diamantis recognizes the severity of his crimes and the damage he has caused.

“Mr. Diamantis does not minimize the seriousness of the jury’s verdict or his breach of the public trust. He asks the Court, however, to impose an individualized sentence based on all the circumstances rather than treating the advisory range as presumptively appropriate,” Pattis wrote.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office disagreed, and argued that the judge needs to sentence Diamantis to prison in order to send a message to other public officials who might exploit their positions of power.

“Crimes by public officials are particularly susceptible to general deterrence because bribery is a premeditated crime — those tempted to sell out the public have plenty of time to weigh the risks and rewards before doing so,” Novick wrote.

“A guidelines sentence sends an important message to another public official tempted to use their office for personal gain, namely, that the consequences will not just be the loss of office and reputation, but substantial loss of liberty as well,” he added.