“The couple’s lawyers had argued that Joe Giudice wants to be able to exonerate his wife through his testimony, but wouldn’t be able to do so if he decides not to take the stand at their joint trial, and that Teresa’s testimony to clear her name could conflict with her marital privilege not to testify against her husband. But prosecutors write in their objection, “Such difficulty does not infringe upon a fundamental right, and it manifestly does not require the Court to hold two separate trials on identical offenses for the sake of preserving marital harmony.” They also respond to assertions in Joe Giudice’s motion, filed earlier this month, that he will testify that his wife had no idea that some of the properties and businesses that may be at the heart of the indictment were being purchased in her name. While there is evidence that in some cases Joe Giudice or someone else signed Teresa’s name at closing, prosecutors say, “it is also true that the Giudices obtained many other fraudulent mortgage loans with Teresa’s direct participation.” The prosecutors also cite Joe Giudice’s history of false testimony, notably in a bankruptcy matter involving a former business partner, as another reason to deny the separation of the trials. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern is quoted, calling Joe Giudice “unbounded as a prevaricator” with a “say-anything, do-anything” attitude on the stand. Finally, prosecutors say the two should be tried together for “judicial economy.”
Should Joe and Teresa have separate trials?
Joe Giudice requested a separate trial from his wife Teresa because he believes that his testimony can exonerate her, but he would not be able to do so if they have a joint trial. Additionally, Teresa’s testimony to clear her name could conflict with her marital privilege not to testify against her husband.
While there is evidence that Joe Giudice or someone else signed Teresa’s name at closing for some properties and businesses, prosecutors argue that Teresa directly participated in obtaining many other fraudulent mortgage loans.
Prosecutors are strongly objecting to a separate trial for Joe and Teresa for several reasons. Firstly, they believe that Joe’s history of false testimony, particularly in a bankruptcy matter, makes him an unreliable witness. Secondly, they argue that trying the couple together would be more efficient in terms of judicial economy. Finally, they state that the difficulty of preserving marital harmony does not infringe upon a fundamental right and does not warrant separate trials.