A federal judge denied a request from Konstantinos Diamantis, the former director of Connecticut’s school construction program, to question the 12 jurors who convicted him of bribery, extortion, conspiracy and lying to federal investigators earlier this year.

Diamantis and his attorney, Norm Pattis, filed a motion in October asking U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill to call the jurors back into court so they could answer questions about whether any of them were untruthful during the jury selection process.

But Underhill, who oversaw Diamantis’ nine-day trial, saw no reason to summon the jurors back into federal court in Bridgeport.

Diamantis’ motion to question the jurors cited remarks the jury forewoman made to news reporters outside the courthouse following the verdict.

The forewoman reportedly told Hearst Connecticut Media she was not aware of Diamantis before the high-profile criminal trial, but she suggested that other members of the jury panel had heard of Diamantis before the trial began.

Pattis argued that statement suggested some jurors had not answered truthfully when Underhill asked them whether they had read or viewed any media about Diamantis.

“Simple logic suggests that one or more jurors in this case were either exposed to potentially prejudicial pre-trial publicity in this case and failed to disclose it, or that one or more jurors were exposed to potentially prejudicial publicity during trial,”

But Underhill sided with the federal prosecutors, and ruled that the statements by the forewoman did not justify bringing the jurors back into court.

“The only evidence that Diamantis can point to in support of his motion is a single
sentence from a single article published after the verdict was delivered,” Underhill wrote in his order.

Underhill also said Diamantis was taking the jury forewoman’s statements out of context.

“Diamantis’ cherry-picking of one sentence from a much longer article — when that sentence does not even quote the foreperson directly or point to any concrete instance of jury misconduct — does not provide incontrovertible evidence that members of the jury acted improperly,” Underhill wrote.

Pattis said he did not agree with Underhill’s order.

“Burying your head in the sand guarantees you will see nothing. We asked for a hearing to make the context clear,” Pattis said in a statement.

“The court’s decision to avoid looking so that it could conclude it sees no evil is unworthy of the court. This decision gives ostriches a bad name,” Pattis said.

Diamantis’ sentencing hearing is set to take place next year, but before that occurs, he is scheduled to face another federal criminal trial in February for allegedly pressuring state officials to cancel a state Medicaid audit in return for bribery payments.