BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (WTNH) — The government rested its case Wednesday in the federal bribery trial of Gov. Ned Lamont’s former state deputy budget director, Konstantinos “Kosta” Diamantis.

From the very first day of the trial, Diamantis has suggested that he could take the stand in his own defense. The former Lamont administration official faces 21 counts, including bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and making false statements to federal investigators.

Federal prosecutors allege that Diamantis demanded and received thousands of dollars in bribes from contractors hired for school construction projects between 2018 and 2021. The 69-year-old was arrested last year and has pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Throughout the trial, Diamantis’ defense attorney, Norm Pattis, has seemed to portray his client as an aggressive, hands-on manager rather than a corrupt state official shaking down contractors for bribes.

The charges are tied to his previous role as director of the Connecticut Office of School Construction Grants and Review. The indictment alleges that Diamantis demanded and received bribes from Acranom, a masonry contractor in Middlefield, as well as from the company’s president and vice president. Diamantis also allegedly used his official position to obtain and maintain contracts for them for state-funded school construction projects.

The 35-page indictment further alleges he demanded and received bribes from the owner of Construction Advocacy Professionals, or CAP, to assist CAP in obtaining contracts to provide construction administrator and related services on construction projects.

In the fall of 2021, Lamont’s office was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury seeking documents related to the school construction program that funds hundreds of millions of dollars in projects statewide.

Diamantis was the deputy secretary at Connecticut’s Office of Policy Management until he was placed on paid administrative leave in October 2021. On the same day, he submitted a letter of resignation and his retirement.

On Tuesday, Pattis and Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Francis discussed the possibility of Lamont’s testimony in open court, and Judge Stefan R. Underhill questioned the relevance of his testimony, siding with the prosecution’s suggestion that the testimony would not be relevant to the underlying charges.

“Bribes for influence”

The prosecution opened the trial last week with testimony from John Duffy, a former construction executive, who said his company funneled multiple cash payments to Diamantis in exchange for help securing lucrative school construction contracts he oversaw for the state.

Frank Dellaripa, an official with the city of Hartford, testified that he did not believe the hiring of Roy’s company for administrative work saved any money on a school construction project in the capital city. Michelle Dixon, a career state employee, told jurors that Roy’s company brought “no value whatsoever” to another administrative project in New Britain.

Dellaripa, Dixon, and a succession of municipal officials and state executives painted a picture of a powerful, headstrong official in charge of the state’s powerful school construction office. Multiple witnesses, from the head of Hartford’s school construction board to an executive with a large construction firm, said they felt pressure to select certain contractors — the same ones whose executives have said they paid Diamantis.

Prosecutors drew their case to a close with testimony from two seasoned federal agents with the FBI and IRS. The purpose of their testimony was mainly to bolster the numerous counts of false statements leveled against Diamantis. On Wednesday, the prosecution showed jurors recordings made by FBI agents during interview with Diamantis in which he denied helping Roy get a contract for a project in Tolland.

Sowing doubt

With each witness, Diamantis’s defense attorney has sought to introduce a measure of doubt in the minds of the jurors.

While cross examining Duffy, Roy, and construction executive Salvatore Monarca, defense attorney Norm Pattis elicited from each admissions that they initially lied to federal investigators.

The defense has also begun laying the groundwork for alternate explanations for Diamantis’s actions, though the full scope of those defenses won’t be illustrated until it’s Pattis’s turn to present his case.

Pattis is no stranger to high profile trials. He’s taken on some of the most headline-grabbing civil and criminal matters in state history, each time bringing his signature style that melds pointed questioning with theatrical flare. Laughter and smiles — including from jurors and the federal judge presiding over the case — have occasionally punctuated Pattis’s questions and remarks.

In impromptu press conferences outside the federal courthouse in Bridgeport, Pattis has declined to discuss the evidence presented in the case. He’s remained tight-lipped about the specifics of the case he’ll begin laying out on Wednesday.

Diamantis set to take the stand

One thing Pattis has been willing to discuss with the throng of reporters who rush to intercept him when he departs the courthouse is his client’s apparent willingness to testify in his own defense.

Diamantis himself has also expressed that desire, telling reporters last week, “You will probably hear my testimony when the time comes.”

On Wednesday, Diamantis was formally informed of his rights to testify, or not to, by the presiding judge — a standard practice that reiterates the constitutional protections guaranteed to all defendants.



His testimony could come as soon as Thursday.