Pharaoh's owner's attorneys argue he has right to jailhouse interviews
BUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — Attorneys for the convicted owner of Pharaoh's Gentlemen's Club, Peter Gerace, said the government's effort to block him from doing jailhouse interviews would be an 'unwarranted restraint' on his First Amendment rights.
On Feb. 3, federal prosecutors requested a gag order on Gerace after learning he requested interviews with reporters at the Chautauqua County Jail, where he remains in custody.
Their government's concerns focused on three issues: Gerace could violate a protective order that safeguards sensitive information, he allegedly planned to discuss matters about the presiding judge and prosecutors, and he could use the media to 'threaten or harass victims and witnesses' or use coded messages for nefarious purposes.
Prosecutors said a jailhouse interview with Gerace would pose an 'unacceptable risk to the sordid history of witness retaliation and obstruction committed by, and at the behest of, Gerace.'
But Gerace's lawyers mostly disagreed.
Eric Soehnlein and Mark Foti, Gerace's attorneys, said he has a First Amendment right to speak with the media as long as he follows United States Marshal Service (USMS) policies, and avoids violating a protective order that safeguards sensitive information.
The USMS policy requires either Gerace or the reporter to get permission from various people, including the presiding judge, the federal prosecutors, his attorneys, and the Chautauqua County jail.
'To the extent the government identifies legitimate concerns regarding Gerace's potential statements to the media, the proposed gag order does nothing to legitimately address those concerns,' Gerace's attorneys said in their response filed Tuesday.
On Dec. 27, 2024, a jury convicted Gerace on eight of nine charges, including sex and drug trafficking, maintaining Pharaoh's as a drug-involved business, and two counts of witness tampering. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Specifically, the jury found the evidence indicated Gerace exploited drug-addicted exotic dancers to traffic them to friends and affluent customers, allowed rampant drug dealing at the club, and ignored heavy drug use among employees and patrons. The jury also found Gerace guilty of bribing former DEA agent Joseph Bongiovanni, a childhood friend, in exchange for inside information that shielded Gerace and associates from law enforcement investigations for at least a decade.
On Oct. 10, a separate jury convicted Bongiovanni on seven of 11 charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and distribute drugs, and four counts of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 20 years in prison. But the jury did not convict Bongiovanni of accepting bribes.
Gerace's attorneys said it is unclear what the media wants to discuss with Gerace, but prosecutors made assumptions about what they believe he might talk about.
'The government may not like the content of the speech, but the speech itself is permissible. It cannot be lawfully restrained,' his attorneys said.
News 4 Investigates had a brief phone conversation with Gerace prior to the request for the gag order. He said he wanted to discuss testimony from witnesses, alleged ethical transgressions by prosecutors, government funds provided to some witnesses for rent and other expenses, and potential sentencing deals some hoped for by testifying.
For example, Gerace's former cellmate, Kevin Hughes, had a 'cooperation agreement' with the government.
On Dec. 10, Hughes testified he agreed to share details of conversations he had with Gerace in the hope of getting a reduced sentence.
Hughes also testified Gerace talked about sex parties at his Clarence home, referenced a dancer who overdosed, and told him, 'You'd be surprised what they'd do for a little bit of product.'
The trial included lengthy debate over whether Hughes and another inmate should be allowed to testify. Gerace's attorneys implied the inmates intentionally sought information from Gerace at the behest of federal prosecutors.
Ultimately, the judge allowed both inmates to testify.
Hughes pleaded guilty in May 2022 to narcotics conspiracy by assisting a drug-trafficking operation. State troopers searched his car and seized more than 19 pounds of methamphetamine, 7 pounds of fentanyl, 5 pounds of cocaine, and cannabis products. He faced between 20 years and life in prison.
Almost a month after Gerace's conviction, U.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra sentenced Hughes to time served (17 months) and two years of supervised probation.
Gerace's attorneys said the government cannot restrain him from making comments about witnesses who testified against him, because 'the government chose to elicit witness testimony in open court, and the witnesses chose to testify in open court — whether it be for pecuniary gain or for benefits in their own cases.'
Prosecutors have until Friday night to respond. Thereafter, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Vilardo could schedule oral arguments or render a decision.
Dan Telvock is an award-winning investigative producer and reporter who has been part of the News 4 team since 2018. See more of his work here and follow him on Twitter.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Associated Press seeks full appeals court hearing on access to Trump administration events
The Associated Press on Tuesday asked for a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, seeking to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that allowed the Trump administration to continue blocking AP access to some presidential events — a four-month case that has raised questions about what level of journalistic access to the presidency the First Amendment permits. Three judges of that court on Friday, in a 2-1 decision, said it was OK for Trump to continue keeping AP journalists out of Oval Office or other small events out in retaliation over the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. He had sought a pause of a lower court's ruling in AP's favor in April that the administration was improperly punishing the news organization for the content of its speech. 'The decision of the appellate panel to pause the district court's order allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said. 'We are seeking a rehearing of this decision by the full appellate court because an essential American principle is at stake.' A hearing before the full court would change the landscape — and possibly the outcome as well. The two judges who ruled in Trump's favor on Friday had been appointed to the bench by him. The full court consists of nine members appointed by Democratic presidents, and six by Republicans. The news outlet's access to events in the Oval Office and Air Force One was cut back starting in February after the AP said it would continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its copy, while noting Trump's wishes that it instead be renamed the Gulf of America. For decades, a reporter and photographer for the AP — a 179-year-old wire service whose material is sent to thousands of news outlets across the world and carried on its own website, reaching billions of people — had been part of a small-group 'pool' that covers a president in places where space is limited. Now, an AP photographer routinely gets access to these events, while text reporters rarely do. ___ David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at and
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
