It has been reported (principally by John OBrien of the Post Standard) that I

was appointed a Special Prosecutor in the Investigation into the release of

sealed information to John OBrien of the Post Standard. Today, in a voice
mail left on my phone, OBrien explicitly linked the two issues, the
Domachowski allegations and the OBrien Investigation.
For the record, I dispute every one of Domachowskis baseless allegations.
They are untrue. At no time before Mr. Domachowskis termination, nor in
the four and a half months since, have I received any notice that anyone
has ever filed any grievance or complaint regarding these matters. As such,
Mr. Domachowskis claim that he was fired in retaliation for his imaginary
claims or complaints is simply false. He has however, filed a Notice of
Claim seeking to receive a monetary judgment for his bad acts while
employed here.
Jeff Domachowski was terminated in June after just 19 months with this
Office and the main reason for his termination was his unethical conduct.
Domachowski is projecting his own guilty conduct upon this Office. This
Office has the support of the Auburn Police Department and the Cayuga
County Sheriffs Department. Domachowski, an eighteen year criminal
defense attorney before joining this Office, never stopped being a criminal
defense attorney and could not fit into the role of a prosecutor. He is now an
island by himself and his fantastical claims have no basis in fact.
As a practical matter, this Office has a long standing open file policy. We
reviews all police reports, statements and recordings with defense attorneys
well before any required statutory discovery time frame. The fact that a
drug dealer is not carrying the drugs they are selling on their person at all
times does not mean they are not drug dealers. On December 3, 2015 Mr.
Domachowski was advised of People v. Coleman, 4 AD3d 677, 678
(3rd Dept. 2004) in that case the defendant claimed the District Attorney
erred in not charging the grand jury as to the agency defense. The Appellate
Court found the defendants contention meritless.
It is axiomatic that a district attorney is under no obligation to charge a grand jury as to
every conceivable defense suggested by the evidence. Rather he or she must charge
only those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support. Here, defendant did not
testify before the grand jury, and accordingly, there was no evidence before that body
indicating that defendant did not stand to profit from the transaction or that he acted
merely as an extension of the buyer with no independent desire to promote the
transaction. (citations omitted)

On July 28, 2016, the Court brought to our attention that both this former
employee Domachowski and the appointed defense attorney Simon Moody
were exchanging confidential emails about this case. The emails reveal that
Domachowski was collaborating with and actively assisting the defense
attorney and revealing confidential information. Tyrone Matthews, a
criminal defendant, had sent Judge Leone a letter disclosing the secret
emails between the two. They are attached hereto. Both Domachowski and
Moody are being investigated for their unethical conduct (disclosing
privileged materials). In those emails they orchestrate what each other
should say and do. According to Simon Moody, Tyrone Matthews was not
the only case where private emails were exchanged between these two.
Further, that Moody was not the only defense attorney receiving such private
emails from Domachowski.
As for Tyrone Matthews, he is a three time convicted drug dealer [Crim. Sale
of a Controlled Substance in the 3rd Degree (11/4/2010 Cayuga Cty. 5 years
determinate prison and 3 years PRS), Attempted CSCS 3rd (Chemung Cty.
3/29/1999, 3-6 yrs prison); CSCS 5th(Cayuga Cty. 3/6/1997, 2-7 years) and has
three other criminal convictions, two of them drug related]. On July 29,

2016, one day after Judge Leone disclosed the defendants letter (containing
those secret emails, attached hereto), and the same day his attorney Simon
Moody visited him at the jail, Matthews is recorded stating Simon begged
me to plead guilty for twenty minutes, he tried so hard, and I might have
to get rid of him thoughcause he about to get investigated too.
Later, just three weeks before his September 12th trial, Matthews told his
girlfriend he was going to plead guilty because none of his friends was
helping him. He repeatedly sent emails telling people he needed help
with these people, to check it out and checking to see if people were
making inquiries about what he was asking for. Once he got word that he
was good, Matthews no longer wanted to plead guilty and went to trial.
Interestingly, the informant did not appear at trial. At trial Matthews took
the stand and denied being close to the informant. He did admit he delivered
the narcotics (twice) and accepted $100 in return (twice). One of the
narcotics sales was out on the street in broad daylight, was captured on
videotape and you can clearly see an exchange and money in the defendants
hand.

Another informant came in to the Auburn Police Department and in a

recorded interview told the police that Domachowski directed the informant
to lie under oath, and testify that he was not searched by the police (when he
had already given sworn statements that he had been searched), and to say
that the informant had entrapped a person to sell drugs by inflating the price
by ten dollars.
The Agency defense is based upon the theory that a particular defendant
is not selling drugs, but merely buying them for another and has no personal
gain from the transaction. While common sense tells us this is simply not
something a person would do, sell narcotics for no reason, it is ultimately a
factual question for a jury to resolve and never arises unless some reasonable
view of the evidence supports that the defendant was acting only on behalf
of the buyer. (People v. Herrling, 83 NY2d 780). Evidence that defendant
was acting as an intermediary is insufficient to warrant and agency defense
charge. (People v. Argibay, 45 NY2d 45). In reality, everyone between the
person growing/manufacturing the drugs and the person ingesting them is
some type of middle man, getting a piece of the action. No one would
expose themselves to possible prison time without some reason, some
personal gain, whether in the form of money, sexual relations, room, board,
drugs or some other profit.
Under the Public Health Law and Penal Law Article 220 Concentrated
Cannabis is defined as a controlled substance. However, it the final analysis
it is still cannabis or marihuana. The defendant Kopecki plead guilty and
admitted he possessed large amounts of both marihuana and concentrated
cannabis. There is no report indicating that the substances recovered during
a search of his home, from which he sold drugs, was not concentrated
cannabis. And Kopecki bragged to the informant about funding his
(Federally forfeited former) coin collection through his drug selling profits.