No Appeal In "Convicted Killer's Mom Woos Juror" Case

Doreen Giuliano, before and after her makeover

Back in 2005, John Giuca and a friend were convicted of killing college student Mark Fisher one night in 2003 and dumping Fisher's body on Argyle Road. Then, in 2008, Giuca's mom Doreen Giuliano launched an impressive attempt to get the verdict overturned by losing weight and undergoing a sexy makeover to attract a juror who eventually admitted on tape that he shouldn't have been on the jury! Now, Giualino's dream of freeing her son has been shattered, because an Appellate panel rejected Guica's plea for appeal. She said to the Post, "I don't know how I could have thought we could get justice in Brooklyn."

The Post reports, "The panel of four judges said that even if the statements of juror Jason Allo that he knew members of Giuca's 'Ghetto Mafia' crew were true, it would not entitle Giuca to a new trial." (Yes, Giuca was allegedly a member of the "Ghetto Mafia.") The Brooklyn DA's office has long maintained that Giuliano's amazing charade—the still-married mother says she would have had sex with Allo, if it would have helped her son—proved nothing and other lawyers were skeptical she'd be able to get the verdict overturned.

Giuca's lawyer plans to take this to the appeals court. In the meantime, read the amazing Vanity Fair article about Giuliano's mission: "During the Indian summer of October 2007, Jason Allo stood on a corner near his apartment as Doreen, in short-shorts, 'happened by' on her bicycle."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on November 10, 2010 4:14 PM

Comments [rss]

jaycjay

"The panel of four judges said that even if the statements of juror Jason Allo that he knew members of Giuca's 'Ghetto Mafia' crew were true, it would not entitle Giuca to a new trial."

Which makes perfect sense. A juror's not automatically incapable of making an unbiased decision just because he and the defendant know some of the same people. If that were the case, assembling a "jury of one's peers" would be completely impossible in a small town. Nothing that the juror said indicated any possibility that he and the defendant may have crossed paths before had any bearing on his participation during the trial.

And even if it could have been used by the defense as a reason to disqualify him before the qualify, the bar necessarily has to be higher once the trial is completed. Essentially, in any case, it is the responsibility of the defense, not the court, to identify any such possible conflicts.