Jury Selection Begins for Pelosi : Defense will allow stun gun experts in trial for Theodore Ammon's murder

By Peter C. Beller

Jury selection in the trial of Daniel Pelosi got off to a slow start Tuesday as lawyers bickered, the defendant made it clear he doesn't like jail, and potential jurors were called in one at a time to answer attorneys' questions.

At the end of the day, 14 out of 40 potential jurors had been dismissed, only a handful of others had been questioned, and lawyers said hundreds more Suffolk County residents might be summoned for jury duty. It could be two weeks or more before a jury is found to sit through a trial expected to last as long as two months.

In the nearly three years since the financier and philanthropist R. Theodore Ammon was found bludgeoned to death in his Middle Lane, East Hampton, house, anticipation has been building toward the day when someone would stand trial for the brutal crime. There were few fireworks, however, as Mr. Pelosi, 41, the Center Moriches electrician charged with the murder, walked into a Riverhead courtroom and nodded to reporters.

Mr. Ammon, 52, was days away from finalizing a bitter divorce with his wife, Generosa Ammon, when he was found naked and beaten to death on Oct. 22, 2001. Three months later Mr. Pelosi, who had begun an affair with Mrs. Ammon after doing work on the couple's Manhattan home, married the widow, but the two had separated by the time she died of cancer in August 2003.

Mr. Pelosi has been held without bail at the Suffolk County Jail in Southampton since he was indicted on a charge of second-degree murder in March. A friend, Christopher Parrino, was also charged with criminal facilitation and hindering prosecution.

Prosecutors have been tight-lipped about their case since the arraignment but claim Mr. Pelosi accessed a remote-controlled video surveillance system in the house shortly before the murder. In a written alibi statement filed with the court Mr. Pelosi said he was either at, or driving to, his sister's house in Center Moriches on the weekend of the killing.

In media interviews, Mr. Pelosi has cast himself as a victim of circumstance, a naive blue-collar guy with a history of drinking and arrests who fell for a beautiful and rich woman.

The first spat of the day came when Gerald L. Shargel, leading Mr. Pelosi's defense, sought to withdraw a motion questioning the expertise of two prosecution witnesses who will testify that marks on the victim's body came from a stun gun.

Calling the field of stun gun examination "at best, a cottage-style endeavor" and a "backwater field of forensic pathology," the motion argued for a hearing to determine if Dr. Michael Doberson and Dr. Robert Stratbucker should be allowed to testify.

The motion also cited the autopsy report as making no mention of a stun gun and said the two experts based their determinations on a photograph.

When the prosecutor Janet Albertson said she would need a week to reply, Mr. Shargel, who has repeatedly accused prosecutors of stalling for time, asked to withdraw the motion, saying, "We want to proceed to trial."

But a check by State Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Doyle to see if Mr. Pelosi understood the withdrawal briefly halted the proceedings when the defendant said he would let the motion stand if he were granted bail.

"I think it's a very good motion," Mr. Pelosi, wearing a navy blue blazer and blue button-down shirt, told the judge after being sworn in. "I wouldn't be withdrawing it if you'd give me bail." After briefly conferring with Mr. Shargel, Mr. Pelosi told the court he was withdrawing the motion voluntarily but Ms. Albertson seized on the blunder to ask the judge to consider the motion, arguing that the matter might otherwise prove grounds for an appeal.

"I'm prepared to prove this defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but I don't want to do so to have it overturned on appeal," Ms. Albertson said. After arguments back and forth from both sides, Justice Doyle allowed Mr. Shargel to withdraw the motion and jury selection began with the judge reading the current list of 78 witnesses, asking potential jurors if they knew any of the people, before dismissing several potential jurors who griped about interruptions in work, school and family life.

The potential jurors, by turns talkative, jittery, or annoyed, were culled from a group of 300 last month. They had already filled out a lengthy questionnaire with queries about their backgrounds, connections to law enforcement, and any prejudices toward the police or lawyers.

In another sign that attorneys are placing a high value on jury selection, Mr. Pelosi's lawyers were joined in court by Robert Hirschhorn, a consultant who helped pick the jury in the trials of Robert Durst, the billionaire acquitted of murdering his neighbor, and the Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols.

Questions for the potential jurors centered on pre-trial publicity, the lack of a murder weapon or eyewitness, and the likelihood that Mr. Pelosi will not testify in his own defense.

"Suppose you were asked to listen to statements by the defendant implicating himself," Ms. Albertson said to one man. She asked potential jurors if they would discount such remarks as being too obvious for the real murderer.

Mr. Shargel, who asked several potential jurors to consider why an innocent man might not testify in his own defense, wanted assurances from the people he interviewed that they could be fair to his client.

"Ted Ammon was savagely and brutally murdered," Mr. Shargel said. "The only thing worse than that would be for an innocent man to be convicted of that crime." With a typical flourish, Mr. Shargel wrapped up the day's interviews by asking one potential juror to face his client.

"Can you look Danny Pelosi in the eye and tell him you can give him a fair trial?" Mr. Shargel asked.

"Sure I can give him a fair trial," the man replied.