Dimora Attorneys to Judge: We Have 100+ Objections

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
AKRON, Ohio --
Attorneys for Jimmy Dimora have told the court they have more than 100 objections to evidence and exhibits that have been presented during the prosecution's case against him.Among the objections was the use of the word "kickback" related to a scheme in which Dimora is alleged to have received money from his co-defendant, Michael Gabor, from a job Gabor had with a company called Green-Source.

Judge Lioi rejected the motion saying that there was evidence that a conspiracy existed in that particular scheme.

With respect to dozens of FBI wiretapped telephone calls that have been played for the jury over the past five weeks, defense attorneys voiced an objection to the written transcripts of all of the phone calls.

"The recording is the evidence, not the transcripts," argued defense attorney Bill Whittaker.

"They are hearsay repetition," he argued on Friday, insisting they "give undue emphasis to all of the phone calls over the other evidence."

Judge Sara Lioi sided with government prosecutors, who countered that the calls are "an aid to the jury to help them sort through hours and hours of calls, if they are looking for a specific conversation."

"The transcripts are an aid," said Lioi, who made it clear she "will instruct the jury that the evidence comes from the audio and not the transcript."

Defense attorneys also voiced an objection to all of the many FBI wiretapped phone calls "based on hearsay."

Judge Lioi, however, wanted more specific references to individual calls to which they object.

An objection was also mounted to the use of photographs of more than a dozen people who have testified during the trial.

The photographs were compiled in a pyramid with Jimmy Dimora and Frank Russo at the top, J. Kevin Kelley, Steve Pumper and Michael Gabor on the second tier, and others below them.

Defense attorneys argued that the photos have "no probative value, look like a bunch of mug shots."

Prosecutors argued that the photos "are not mug shots; they are all drivers license photographs [and] will help the jury distinguish between the people who have [testified]."

Again, Judge Lioi agreed with prosecutors, saying, "There were a number of people who testified in this case [and the photographs] will frankly help the jury keep people straight and were properly admitted."

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.