Can a mother’s love go too far?  Is it appropriate to go to any means to free her Ghetto Mafia son convicted of second-degree murder by secretly recording one of his jurors to set aside a guilty verdict?


Meet Doreen Giuliano aka “Dee Quinn:”

By Giuliano’s own account, her son’s conviction nearly gave her a nervous breakdown. In 2006, she hatched a plan to begin spying on jurors to see if she could uncover any misconduct. She eventually zeroed in on Allo, a construction worker with a shaved head living in the Bensonhurst section of Brooklyn. She tailed him for months, once even wearing a headscarf as a disguise.

While casing his apartment, “His cat sat in the window,” she said. “So I knew I’d say I was a cat-lover when I met him.” In the fall of 2007, Giuliano reinvented herself. She slimmed down at the gym, rented an apartment in Allo’s neighborhood and printed business cards with her assumed name: Dee Quinn, a a recent West Coast transplant.

Her husband initially told her she was crazy, but backed down. Soon she orchestrated a chance meeting with Allo on the street, pretending to be a lonely single woman from California and giving him her phone number. Giuliano began inviting Allo over to her place and to soften him up. He never recognized her from her days sitting through the trial.

“She was offering me wine, offering to smoke weed,” he said. There also was flirting. But both said it never went any further. Mainly, they talked. And her digital tape recorder rolled.
She says she struck gold in late 2007, while grilling her new friend about his jury duty. I’ll tell you this but I would never tell anybody else,” he said, according to transcripts prepared by the defense. “I actually had some type of information.”

Allo went on to explain that he didn’t know Giuca directly, but used to hang out in his clique and heard rumors about the Fisher slaying — something he failed to mention when questioned under oath during jury selection. Asked if he had been curious about newspaper accounts of the trial, he responded that he’d read them. He also bragged that he had been the first one during deliberations to vote for a conviction.

Is there something inherently wrong in breaking the law to entice a confession by a self-anointed finder-of-fact mother seeking her own brand of justice?

Does Ms. Giuliano believe her son is guilty of the killing — or does only his freedom matter to her?

In singlehandedly trying to re-try the case, she has spurned the justice system to render own valueless brand of an apron strings hanging.

4 Comments

  1. She doesn’t care if he did it or not. She just wants him home. Pretty strange stuff going on there. What guy would spill his beans without getting any sex? Don’t believe it. Pot isn’t enough.

  2. I think there is a kind of obsession David. Does the mother really elieve that her son his guilty is in the first place?