Left: Michele Fiore speaks after her conviction for defrauding donors (KTNV/YouTube). Right: Michele Fiore campaign ad (YouTube).
The Las Vegas woman known as “Lady Trump” is seeking to have her wire fraud conviction overturned, claiming that multiple errors during her trial deprived her of a fair outcome. She has asked a judge to review the case.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey heard arguments on Monday from Michele Fiore, also known as “Lady Trump” for her right-wing views.
Lady Trump, whose real name is Fiore, was found guilty of six counts of wire fraud for her involvement in a scheme that defrauded donors who contributed to a charity dedicated to honoring a fallen police officer. The jury determined that she had misled donors about how their contributions would be used.
Federal prosecutors accused Fiore of using her position on the city council to solicit donations for a memorial statue honoring Officer Alyn Beck of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police, who was tragically killed in the line of duty in 2014. Allegedly, she assured donors that all their contributions would go towards the statue’s construction, but prosecutors claim this was not the case.
However, prosecutors say that Fiore “did not use any of the tens of thousands of dollars in charitable donations for the statue of the fallen officers.” Instead, she converted all of the money — more than $70,000 — “for her own personal benefit.”
“The donations were used to pay her political fundraising bills and rent and were transferred to family members, including to pay for her daughter’s wedding,” the release states.
As Law&Crime reported at the time, a significant portion of the trial went sideways when Fiore’s daughter, Sheena Siegel, took the stand to testify for the defense. Siegel testified that despite no background in either charity or campaign work, she helped her mother deal with such issues, according to local CBS affiliate KLAS. Siegel reportedly testified that she researched those laws and found them lax. When she returned to the stand after a break, she reportedly said that she signed a check over from a PAC to her own, personal account. The woman’s testimony was then cut short from that point.
Prosecutors suggested this admission was itself a federal crime. The judge interjected to say that Siegel should consider obtaining legal representation because she may have incriminated herself. Her testimony was ultimately stricken from the record.
A jury took only hours to convict Fiore.
Months later, Fiore, who had also served as a justice of the peace in Pahrump, Nevada, filed a motion for acquittal and a motion for a new trial in late January. In her new trial motion, she argued that a series of events ultimately amounted to prejudicial errors that justified wiping the slate clean and starting over with a new trial.
From Fiore’s motion:
Ms. Fiore was denied a fair trial. She has a constitutional right to present witnesses to establish a defense. Sheena Siegel was a defense witness. Ms. Siegel’s immunity agreement was erroneously withdrawn, forcing her to invoke her fifth amendment privilege. This caused the Court to strike her entire testimony violating Ms. Fiore’s constitutional right to compulsory and due process. The striking of Ms. Siegel’s testimony was extremely prejudicial to Ms. Fiore for two reasons: (1) Ms. Siegel supported Ms. Fiore’s theory of defense. She could establish that monies collected were in fact utilized for charitable events in contradiction to the Government’s position that all money was used for personal reasons and (2) the Government only identified Ms. Siegel as the co-conspirator when they knew she would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege in front of the jury and then again after her testimony was stricken.
Moreover, Fiore argues, the DOJ attorneys “had no standing to null and void” Siegel’s immunity agreement — that could only have been done by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada, with the judge also weighing in.
Instead of asking the right questions, however, the government “proceeded to accuse Ms. Siegel of a federal crime and then used that as a basis to unilaterally void her immunity agreement,” Fiore’s motion said. The motion then says the government “had been vying to catch Ms. Siegel in a lie” and as proof, included a redacted statement made by prosecutors after Siegel was granted immunity and before she testified before the grand jury.
“Further, the Court didn’t even know about the immunity deal until the Assistant Federal Public Defender advised the Court that such deal existed,” the motion continues. “And even then, nobody advised the Court or defense counsel that the government withdrew the immunity agreement before Ms. Siegel was put back on the stand for further cross-examination and asserted her Fifth Amendment right in front of the jury. This prompted a defense motion for mistrial that was denied. Thereafter, the Court struck Ms. Siegel’s testimony completely recognizing the severe sanction but feeling that it was the only option in light of the circumstances. This caused extreme prejudice to Ms. Fiore.”
“Ms. Beck’s testimony was clearly not needed and was only offered for emotional effect,” the motion says. Fiore’s lawyers also say that the jury received erroneous instructions.
Federal prosecutors opposed Fiore’s request, saying that the government did not try to trick Siegel into admitting to a federal crime and that the prosecutors’ witnesses — including that of Nicole Beck — were entirely appropriate.
According to the federal docket, Dorsey heard arguments on Monday and “will issue an order in due course.”
Fiore remains out of prison “on present terms of release,” Dorsey’s order also said. Her sentencing is scheduled for April 14. She faces up to 20 years behind bars for each wire fraud count.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
