Teslovich attorney makes case for new trial
The attorney for convicted madam Susanne B. Teslovich recently argued before a panel of state Superior Court judges that Teslovich is due a new trial because the wiretap evidence used against her should have been suppressed. Jack W. Connor argued Tuesday in Pittsburgh that not enough evidence was presented to issue the order that permitted the wiretaps that were instrumental in the case against the former Fayette County commissioner.
Teslovich was convicted following a December 2001 trial in Fayette County court of five counts of prostitution-related offenses, including the third degree felonies of owning, controlling, managing or supporting a prostitution business and encouraging another to become a prostitute.
In January 2002, she was sentenced to serve six to 36 months in prison for the conviction. Teslovich appealed, maintaining her innocence, and remains free on bond.
Teslovich operated First Class Entertainment Service from her Smock home and the prosecution successfully argued that it was a front for a prostitution ring.
Teslovich claimed the business offered nude or partially nude message, strip dancing and escorts.
Connor argued before the Superior Court that Teslovich’s employee Danielle “Carrie” Bogle acted on her own when she gave an undercover state trooper various prices for sex acts in a motel room.
Further evidence that Bogle was acting on her own was that she gave the trooper her home telephone number and told him not to go through the service to contact him, Connor claimed.
In the brief filed in support of Teslovich’s appeal, Connor claims that the suppression court should not have granted a motion for a wiretap because it did not specify that the investigation was “dangerous to life, limb or property,” which under the Federal Wire Interception Act must be pleaded when the object of the investigation involves prostitution and related offenses.
The brief also claims that there was a lack of probable cause to believe that Teslovich was engaged in illegal activity to justify issuance of an interception order.
The allowance of hearsay evidence presented through State Police Trooper Jeffery Domborsky was also questioned because the evidence was severely prejudicial and incriminating, Connor wrote.
Other issues listed in the brief include that District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when she said that Teslovich had contacted a Commonwealth witness and instructed the witness to deny having any recollection of the pertinent facts.
Connor also wrote that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Teslovich promoted prostitution either by running a prostitution business or encouraging another to become a prostitute because each employee signed a contract stating they would not engage in illegal activity.
Connor said Wednesday that the decision of the Superior Court could takes months to be handed down.