Judge denies Rowland’s request for new trail

Former Gov. John G. Rowland leaves the Federal Courthouse after his trial in New Haven, Conn., on Friday Sept. 19, 2014. Rowland was found guilty on all seven federal counts of violating campaign laws.

Former Gov. John G. Rowland leaves the Federal Courthouse after his trial in New Haven, Conn., on Friday Sept. 19, 2014. Rowland was found guilty on all seven federal counts of violating campaign laws.

A federal judge has denied former Gov. John G. Rowland’s request for a new trial in his election fraud case and set his sentencing for March 18, the latest setback for the twice-convicted Republican who resigned from office a decade ago.

During a conference call with Rowland’s lawyers and prosecutors Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the disgraced governor’s claim that the Justice Department suppressed critical evidence from the defense, people briefed on the matter told Hearst Connecticut Media Tuesday.

Convicted last September of hatching an illegal off-the-books political consulting scheme during the 2012 congressional campaign of Republican Lisa Wilson-Foley in the 5th District, Rowland could face more than three years in prison as a two-time offender if Arterton follows the sentencing recommendation of prosecutors.

The jury’s guilty verdict in New Haven federal court was a stunning recurrence for Rowland, who resigned as governor in 2005 and served 10 months in prison for accepting bribes. Wilson-Foley was convicted of illegally funneled $35,000 in political consulting fees to Rowland through Apple Rehab, a nursing home business owned by her husband, Brian Foley.

Not wanting to be tainted by putting Rowland on the campaign payroll, the couple concocted a sham contract with the former governor, who was still an influential figure in his native Waterbury and other parts of the 5th District, where Wilson-Foley failed to get the GOP nomination for Congress. The 5th District stretches from Danbury to the Farmington Valley and includes Litchfield County, Meriden and New Britain.

Had they known a law firm had signed off on the contract, Rowland’s legal team said in a January misconduct complaint it would have called Wilson-Foley as a witness during Rowland’s trial.

Prosecutors say they were not aware that the couple discussed this aspect of the case.

The sentencing of both Rowland and Wilson-Foley had been delayed indefinitely while Arterton determined whether Rowland’s due process rights were violated under what is known as the Brady disclosure rule. Named after the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, it requires prosecutors to disclose all evidence that might be considered favorable to a defendant.

Prosecutors are seeking a 10-month sentence for Wilson-Foley, but her lawyers want probation. A sentencing date for Wilson-Foley hasn’t been set.

Her husband received three years of probation, with the first three months to be spent in a halfway house, and a $30,000 fine for his role in the scheme.

Neil Vigdor