An incredible story has emerged out of New York. Doreen Giuliano, 46, has admitted to assuming a fake identity to seduce Jason Allo, a contractor who lived in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn who was a juror on her son’s murder trial. Three years ago, John Giuca from Brooklyn was convicted with another man in the 2003 killing of Mark Fisher, a college student from New Jersey who was found beaten and shot five times.
This is truly an extraordinary tale. Not satisfied with her website defending her son, Giuliano went to extraordinary lengths of dying her hair blond, working out, going to a tanning salon, and even renting an apartment for the seduction of Allo.
She assumed the role of a 30-year-old research analyst from California with six-inch heels and push-up bras to attract the younger man. (The stories below have her before and after shots). Her husband was reportedly aware of the private sting operation and she insists that, while she had Allo up to her apartment, the relationship remained flirtatious only.
She recorded many of their conversations allegedly including admissions from Allo that he knew people who appeared on the trial witness list and that they “used to abuse” his brother. She is quoted as saying ““He said, ‘I was the first one to come in with guilty and they were all debating,’ ” she said. “He says — he shouts — ‘I shouldn’t have ever been on that jury.’ ”
The tape recordings are now part of motion for a new hearing. This is a very reckless act. Had she done this during the trial, she would have been charged with witness tampering and obstruction. Two individuals were previously arrested for menacing witnesses, here. She may still be sued for privacy violations in torts and misrepresentation. The possible tort action is intriguing. Intrusion upon seclusion is a possibility based on misrepresentation. However, she is revealing his statements about a non-private matter. Also, statements made in court are privileged. Then there is public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, but there is an exception for matters of public concern and these facts might not be viewed as private. She can argue that this is merely the danger of a “false friend” and not a tort. There is also the question of consensual surveillance, which may have been legal in New York but differs from state to state.