New York madam is penniless, attorney says

NEW YORK Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:57pm EDT

Peter Gleason (L), attorney for Anna Gristina, who has been charged with promoting prostitution, and civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, who is aiding Gleason, speak with the media outside Manhattan Criminal Court in New York March 12, 2012. REUTERS/Allison Joyce

Peter Gleason (L), attorney for Anna Gristina, who has been charged with promoting prostitution, and civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, who is aiding Gleason, speak with the media outside Manhattan Criminal Court in New York March 12, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Allison Joyce

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A woman who prosecutors say reaped millions of dollars running a Manhattan prostitution ring doesn't have "two nickels to rub together," her attorney said Monday in a hearing over whether she could keep her taxpayer-funded attorney.

The New York state judge in the case decided Anna Gristina may keep her free attorney for now, but warned that would end if prosecutors later prove the woman New York tabloids have dubbed the "Soccer Mom Madam" has hidden wealth.

Prosecutors claim she maintained a wealthy client list and boasted on recordings and wiretaps of law enforcement connections that would protect her.

"She doesn't have two nickels to rub together," attorney Peter Gleason told the judge, Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Manuel Merchan.

Gleason offered to put his own Manhattan apartment up as collateral for her $1 million bail, a move prosecutors contested as unethical during a sometimes raucous hearing on Monday that featured bickering between defense attorneys.

Gristina faces one charge of promoting prostitution after what prosecutors said was a five-year investigation.

While allowing Gristina to keep a taxpayer-funded defender, Merchan declined to allow her to pick who that attorney would be.

Just who will defend Gristina was the focus of sparring between Gleason - a family friend who conceded in court he has no felony criminal defense experience - and the one appointed by the court, Richard Siracusa.

Gleason asked Merchan to remove Siracusa from the case, telling the judge that Siracusa had not visited Gristina in jail since her arrest.

Siracusa retorted that Gleason had been "nothing but a hindrance."

After a short recess, Siracusa told the judge Gristina had decided to hold off on her request to replace him with Gleason until she had time to discuss the case with him.

Justice Merchan, who noted the "friction" between the two lawyers had him concerned, made it clear that Siracusa, not Gleason, will handle Gristina's defense.

"Mr. Siracusa is your criminal attorney on this case," he told Gristina, a 44-year-old Scottish woman. "He will be the one who speaks for you. is always welcome to speak in court. But I want everything to be run through the criminal attorney."

Gristina will be back in court on Thursday for the judge to decide whether to adjust her bail terms.

(Reporting By Joseph Ax; Editing by Dan Burns and Daniel Trotta)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
MaxxVelocity wrote:
How absurd. Here we are in the middle of an economic meltdown, yet no one blinks at shoveling thousands of tax dollars down the drain in the attempt to imprison a woman who did nothing more than provide a service in a free market.

Land of the free? Depends who you ask.

Mar 12, 2012 5:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonwalker wrote:
What else are we suppose to expect in a country where the laws are designed to punish its citizens for the things that bring pleasure to them.

Mar 12, 2012 5:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
InternetUser wrote:
New York needs to adopt some of Nevada’s policies. Namely the one that make prostitution controlled, regulated and legal. It’s absolutely foolish to think that making prostitution illegal is somehow going to reduce the demand for it. People are going to do it regardless of the law. Why not make it safer by removing it from the black market economy?

Mar 12, 2012 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.