Photo: ABC News
A 46-year-old mother in Brooklyn admitted she changed her hair and began tanning and dressing provocatively to seduce the man she believed wrongfully convicted her son of a 2005 murder.During one of their many wine and marijuana nights, Doreen Giuliano admitted she hoped to record juror Jason Allo admitting he should not have been on her son’s jury, thus earning her son a mistrial, the New York Post reported Sunday.
Giuliano’s son Jason Giuca was convicted in 2005 of murdering 19-year-old Mark Fisher. At the time, prosecutors alleged Giuca and his friends, who went by the name the “Ghetto Mafia,” lured Fisher back to Giuliano’s home and shot him.
But Giuliano couldn’t accept the verdict. Despite the fact she is currently married, Giuliano decided to go undercover as Dee Quinn, a business-management consultant from California, and seduce Allo.
She rented the basement apartment around the corner from Allo’s house, riding her bicycle back and forth in front of the building while wearing hot pants until Allo noticed her, according to the Post.
“Doreen, as Dee, started hanging out with Allo — mainly, she says, drinking wine and smoking pot in her basement apartment, eating the takeout food she pretended she had cooked, talking about everything and nothing while the recording devices she’d stashed in her handbag picked up their boring, innocuous chit-chat,” the Post reported.
Giuliano’s husband reportedly knew about her many nights spent with Allo, but that didn’t stop her.
“Look, husbands are always second when you have kids,” Giuliano told the Post. “So when you say you’d do anything for your kid, you mean it. If I’m gonna lose Frank [her husband] over my son, so be it. You could always get another husband. And would I lie if I did [sleep with Allo]? Yeah, most likely yes, I would lie. I would!”
Allo eventually admitted to Giuliano that he shouldn’t have been on her son’s jury because he recognised some of the trial witnesses. Giuliano thought she finally secured her son the much-desired mistrial, but the courts didn’t agree.
“[T]he defendant’s motion reveals extraordinary misconduct,” the court ruled in 2010, according to the Post, “not by a juror, but by the woman who generated the motion — the defendant’s mother.”
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that jurors in high-profile cases, which Giuca’s was at the time, cannot be expected to know absolutely nothing about the case, the Post pointed out. So the fact that Allo recognised some witnesses wasn’t an egregious offence.
Giuca’s attorney has appealed the court’s ruling to a federal court, which is expected decide the issue in the next few weeks, according to the Post.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.