YOUNGSTOWN Fireman's bond again at issue
Prosecutors say the man was at a bar, which would violate terms of his bond.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Prosecutors are making a third bid to revoke the bond of a city firefighter who is awaiting trial on charges of felonious assault.
James DiMuzio, 41, of Melrose Avenue, is accused of beating up Edward T. Saadi, an attorney, at a Boardman restaurant in January 2001. He has been allowed to remain free on a personal recognizance bond while he awaits trial.
A trial was set for Wednesday but has been postponed.
DiMuzio was indicted in March 2001. Later that year, prosecutors filed a motion to revoke his bond because of an altercation he had with another man at a downtown bar.
Rather than revoke his bond and order him to be jailed, Judge Robert Lisotto of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court made it a condition of the bond that DiMuzio stay out of establishments that sell or serve alcoholic beverages.
Assistant Prosecutor Robert Andrews filed a motion with the court Monday alleging that DiMuzio was seen at a bar on Mahoning Avenue in June. He said that violates Judge Lisotto's terms, so the bond should be revoked and DiMuzio sent to jail to await trial. A hearing on the matter will be Aug. 27.
Atty. Mark Carfolo, who represents DiMuzio, had not yet seen the motion and hadn't had a chance to talk with his client about it.
He said the fact that DiMuzio is a firefighter is the only reason the case is being pursued, though he acknowledged that DiMuzio has a history of assaults.
"Still, if this was just any Joe off the street, this [bond] wouldn't even be an issue," Carfolo said. "I'd like to get a trial date set and get this thing over with."
Andrews also filed a motion in May seeking to revoke DiMuzio's bond after another man said DiMuzio assaulted him at a construction site where they were working.
At a hearing on that request, witnesses testified that they saw the two men arguing but that DiMuzio never struck or attempted to strike the other man. Judge Lisotto still has not ruled on that revocation request.