Uniondale man acquitted in Flush the Johns case

A Uniondale man swept up in the Flush the Johns anti-prostitution sting in Nassau County last year was acquitted Friday of the sole charge, patronizing a prostitute in the third degree.

After summations in the case of Eddie Digsby on Friday, Judge Martin Massell retired to his chambers, and returned less than 10 minutes later to render the not-guilty verdict, without elaboration.

Digsby's shoulder sagged and he turned to shake hands with this attorney, Brian Shupak. Digsby, 54, and Shupak declined to comment.

A spokesman for District Attorney Kathleen Rice said in a statement that "Our conviction rate stands at over 80 percent in these cases and we will continue to pursue more."

Six of the seven defendants in the sting who contested the misdemeanor charge and went to trial during the past year were acquitted. One was convicted. More than 80 other defendants have pleaded guilty to some charge. All the trials were nonjury and held in First District Court in Hempstead.

The sting netted 104 men on prostitution charges during April and May of 2013 and was the first time Nassau County police arrested the men who solicited sex rather than the prostitutes.

Rice held a news conference in June 2013 to publicize the arrests and dubbed the sting Flush the Johns.

Shupak argued in summation earlier Friday that the Nassau County police, who made the arrest on May 24, 2013, never recorded the original telephone call Digsby supposedly made that day to an undercover officer posing as a prostitute.

"Why not record the essence of the crime?" Shupak said to the judge.

During a three-minute video of a later hotel-room encounter with the undercover in Garden City, Digsby is seen reaching to take off one of his shoes -- a movement prosecutors said was a prelude to a sexual encounter. "We don't know why he's taking his shoes off," the defense attorney said.

And the undercover officer, not Digsby, was the first one in the hotel room to mention money, Shupak said. The undercover officer testified earlier in the week that Digsby telephoned her and talked about a $60 "special" he had seen on a website catering to prostitution, and she knew that was code meaning sex for money.

However, the officer admitted under cross-examination that the talk about the "special" was never written down by another officer who was responsible for logging details of each telephone solicitation, including the amount to be paid and the type of sex discussed.

Assistant District Attorney George Michel said in his summation that the judge should use common sense as well as the law in reaching his verdict.

"Your honor, the defendant is a grown man. He didn't end up in a hotel room by mistake," Michel said.