Michele Fiore seeks new trial in federal wire fraud case

Attorneys for Michele Fiore have filed a post-trial motion asking for a new trial, arguing that the testimony of the former judge and councilwoman’s daughter should not have been excluded and that her prior attorney was “ineffective.”

Fiore was found guilty in October of federal wire fraud and conspiracy charges.

Prosecutors said she raised tens of thousands of dollars for a statue of fallen Metropolitan Police Department officer Alyn Beck, but spent the funds on personal expenses like rent, plastic surgery and her daughter’s wedding.

“I think when you look at all the factors that are in the motion for a new trial, it indicates that she didn’t get a fair trial,” said Paola Armeni, an attorney who currently represents Fiore.

The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

Fiore’s daughter’s testimony

During the trial, Fiore’s daughter, Sheena Siegel, said she might have signed a check from an account for her mother’s political action committee, an account for which she was not a signatory. She admitted that signing the check would not be legal.

Federal prosecutor Alexander Gottfried asked if she was “admitting to a federal crime” and the trial paused.

After that testimony, Siegel invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and stopped answering questions. Prosecutors said Siegel had been offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for her cooperation and honesty, but committed perjury because her testimony about the checks may have contradicted previous grand jury testimony.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey ultimately threw out Siegel’s testimony over the objections of Michael Sanft, the attorney who represented Fiore at trial.

Siegel could not be reached for comment.

That controversy figures prominently in the Jan. 31 motion for a new trial filed by defense attorneys Armeni and Gia Marina.

Fiore’s lawyers said that the parties requested a sidebar and Fiore’s previous attorney moved for a mistrial in the wake of Siegel’s testimony, a request that was denied.

The motion argues that Siegel’s “immunity agreement was erroneously withdrawn, forcing her to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege” and causing the court to improperly strike her testimony.

Siegel could have supported her mother’s defense by testifying that money raised was used for charitable events, Armeni and Marina said.

‘Ineffective’ counsel?

Sanft was “ineffective,” Fiore’s current attorneys said in the motion.

Some “witnesses testified at trial without requisite personal knowledge, yet the defense failed to object to the line of questioning or responses elicited,” the filing said. “This failure significantly prejudiced Ms. Fiore. Indeed, several purported donors testified that they had either no direct knowledge of Ms. Fiore and/or that their donations were solicited from someone other than Fiore.”

In a phone interview, Sanft said, “Every criminal defense attorney will approach a case in their own perspective, in their own way, based upon their own experience.”

Armeni and Marina also argued Sanft and prosecutors didn’t attempt to correct testimony from Gov. Joe Lombardo that contradicted previous statements he made.

Part of the section about Lombardo is redacted in court records. His press office did not respond to a request for comment.

Sanft said he and Lombardo “were argumentative with each other,” but he couldn’t recall any issues with Lombardo’s testimony.

‘Animus for Ms. Fiore’

Armeni and Marina asserted that Fiore’s prosecution was vindictive.

The case “was brought solely out of animus for Ms. Fiore, which stemmed from her outspoken position on the Cliven Bundy case (including being named as a defense witness), which was prosecuted by AUSA Steven Myhre and resulted in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, her political affiliation, and her involvement in the ‘badlands’ litigation which ‘was not even in her ward,’ ” her attorneys argued.

“Was there a feeling that this was vindictive? Absolutely,” said Sanft. “But the problem at the end of the day is that you can’t prove it.”

The Nevada U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Fiore supported the Bundy family in their 2014 conflict with the federal government.

Dorsey ruled before the trial that Fiore could not claim the government “vindictively or selectively” prosecuted her.

Attorneys argued in the new motion that excluding testimony and evidence about the government’s motives “denied Ms. Fiore the right to a fair trial.”

Fiore’s sentencing is set for March 10.

Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com. Follow @BrighamNoble on X.