Power on Trial: Singh has yet to testify this time around

Will the first go last?

An observer had a question Thursday morning as he entered the courtroom.

Is Harendra Singh testifying today?

Ah, no. He wasn’t.

Three days into the trial, and there’s been no physical sign of Singh.

There have been plentiful mentions from prosecutors, defense attorneys for Edward and Linda Mangano, and several witnesses.

But unlike last time around, prosecutors seem to be saving Singh for later in the trial.

Singh was Witness One in the first Mangano trial, going on for days — and days — about bribes, gifts, tax evasion, loans and even, at one point, how his mansion home was in the “poor” section of Locust Valley.

Some of the witnesses that prosecutors had brought in last to buttress Singh’s assertions at the end of the first Mangano trial are now testifying before the jury first.

Instead of them buttressing Singh’s testimony, this time around it appears that Singh’s testimony will buttress theirs.

Thus far, there’s been testimony from witnesses about expensive chairs that Singh bought for Edward Mangano, a low-show job Singh provided for Linda Mangano, a watch Singh bought for one of Mangano’s sons, and wood flooring Singh bought for a bedroom in the Mangano home.

On Thursday morning, prosecutors began questioning witnesses about a contract to provide bread and rolls to the county jail and juvenile detention facility. That contract initially was slated to go to one vendor, but ended up being awarded to a bakery owned by Singh’s wife, Ruby — until she, citing the businesses’ inability to handle the contract, pulled out.

But Singh’s absence isn’t keeping Kevin Keating, Edward Mangano’s attorney, and John Carman, who is representing Linda Mangano, from using their cross examinations to clue jurors about crimes committed by Singh, a cooperating witness who has pleaded guilty to bribery and multiple other charges.

“What did Singh ask you to do?,” Carman asked Paul Evwiehor, one former Singh employee, during cross examination Wednesday, seeking detail on some of Singh’s activities after federal officials began investigating the former restaurateur and Mangano family friend.

“He asked me to save all of our files in a flash drive,” Evwiehor said.

“Why?” Carman pressed.

“So the information was not in the server and could not be traced by the FBI,” Evwiehor said.

On the dotted line

Evwiehor and his wife, Melissa Rodak Evwiehor, were the first witnesses — the second time around — who testified under agreements that would spare them federal prosecution on tax evasion and other crimes.

In the first trial, Singh had that distinction.

In exchange for testimony, he has a cooperation deal with prosecutors that would allow truthful testimony to be taken into account by U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack, who will, at some future point, determine Singh’s sentence.

Each Evwiehor — as the couple testified under direct and cross examination — has a separate nonprosecution agreement in exchange for testimony.

On Thursday morning, at the finish of his cross examination of Paul Evwiehor, Carman pressed him on that point.

“Do you recall an agreement with the government?” he asked.

“Yes,” came the reply.

The lawyer then pulled the witness though a litany of allegations the witness could have faced as a result of actions he took at the behest of Singh — and taxes he did not pay on undeclared cash income.

“Tax evasion?” Carman asked.

“Yes,” came the reply.

At one point, Carman, holding up what presumably was a copy of the agreement, hammered away again at “charges you won’t have to face because you signed this . . . You get a pass on prosecution, a pass on the tax evasion.”

Name game

“Did Harendra Singh have a special name for you?” Carman asked Paul Evwiehor, who testified Wednesday that Singh had called him “son.”

“No,” Evwiehor said.

A nickname, Carman pressed?

“No,” came the reply.

A pet name?

Instead of answering, Evwiehor reached for a cup of water.

Carman, undeterred, pressed on.

A special name?

“Good,” Evwiehor said, smiling, before answering in the affirmative.

“Son,” he said.

I will remember you

Earlier in the day, while awaiting jurors slowed by monsoon-like rain and winds outside, Azrack again addressed the issue of how lawyers were to make reference to the Manganos' first trial.

“If you would, refrain from telling the witnesses they met you before,” she began.

“Why’s that, judge?” Carman asked, arguing that the reminder added context for the jury.

“It's an inappropriate context,” Azrack snapped back. “Don’t do it.”

Carman, in cross examining witnesses on Wednesday who also had appeared during the first trial, once or twice began questioning with, “Remember me?”

Azrack in October ruled that last year’s trial, which for the Manganos ended in a mistrial, be referenced as “a prior proceeding.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Caffarone said prosecutors had instructed their witnesses not to refer to a “first trial” — as one witness did Wednesday while under questioning by Carman.

“They were advised, but mistakes do happen,” he told Azrack Thursday.

As the morning went on, there was zero mention of a “first trial.”

And when Carman rose for his first cross examination of the day, he introduced himself thusly: “I am John Carman,” he said, “Linda Mangano’s attorney.”

On a roll

Late morning, during testimony about a bread and rolls contract for the Nassau jail and juvenile detention center that prosecutors contend was steered to Ruby Singh, Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Treinis Gatz managed to elicit several more crumbs of information than was had during the first trial.

At the time of the contract, samples of bread loaves from Singh’s San Remo bakery were provided to Linda Mills, a food inspector for Nassau County, who also handled the bids. The loaves were wrapped in plastic secured by twist-ties.

“That would be considered contraband within a correctional center,” Mills testified, noting that the ties contained metal. “It could be a problem.”

In addition, the bread had no nutritional labeling, was not kosher, and loaves would have had to have been sliced thinner than required.

Ruby Singh, Mills testified, initially told her that the issues could be addressed, but pulled out of the contract a few days later because the business could not meet its requirements.

To be continued

Nassau County’s property assessment system made a surprise appearance in the last half-hour of Thursday’s proceedings when Keating, during cross examination, asked county purchasing director Michael Schlenoff whether he knew anything about what has become the bane of the Nassau’s attempts to get out of red ink — reassessment refunds.

Schlenoff said no, but then said yes after Keating asked if he knew about Nassau’s decision — because of a budget crunch — to privatize its bus system.

Did Schlenoff know about a county plan — which was never implemented — to privatize the county sewer system?

“I’m not sure,” came the answer.

And from there, Keating went on to ask about a budget crisis, a $140 million borrowing, and something — hey, it was late in the day — that would have given the county executive “the ability to slash $40 million from the budget.”

Nassau’s finances, which to this day are riddled with red ink, did not come up during the Manganos’ first trial.

And testimony for the day — and the week — ended before Keating’s purpose for introducing the budget crisis became clear.

But perhaps things will come Monday, when the trial resumes.