RHONJ: Judge Dismisses Indictment Against Thomas Manzo After Attack on Ex Dina Manzo’s Husband Dave Cantin, Details Revealed

by Adam Ragsdale Comments
33 comments
RHONJ: Judge Dismisses Indictment Against Thomas Manzo After Alleged Attack on Ex Dina Manzo’s Husband Dave Cantin, Details Revealed

Credit: Instagram

Thomas Manzo’s three-count indictment was dismissed by a federal judge.

The dismissal was based on the grounds that the Speedy Trial Act was violated. The judge dismissed it without prejudice, which means the government must now get a new indictment if they choose to re-prosecute.

The indictment claimed that Thomas asked John Perna to arrange an assault on Real Housewives of New Jersey star Dina Manzo’s now-husband David Cantin, using John’s crime family connections. As an alleged payment, John used Thomas’ Brownstone wedding venue (with a large discount) for his daughter’s wedding.

 Per NorthJersey.com, prosecutors claimed John and a crewmember assaulted David with a slapjack in July of 2015. The wedding took place a month later. Other members of the Lucchese crime family also allegedly attended.

Thomas’ attorneys argued that the government did not start the trial in the timeframe established by the federal mandate for a speedy trial. U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton agreed, pointing out that a dozen motions delayed the trial after Thomas was indicted by a grand jury in 2020.

Per the outlet, the trial was delayed because of the pandemic, complications from the case and discovery, as well as the termination of several of Thomas’ defense attorneys.

The judge could have dismissed it with prejudice – meaning the government could not re-file charges against him – but Wigenton said she did not because the “charged offenses are unquestionably serious.”

She added that the delays did not “suggest bad faith or a pattern of neglect by the government. Nor does defendant point to any. Instead, defendant’s sole — and conclusory — argument is that the delay was substantial and, thus, inherently prejudicial. This Court is not persuaded.”

“While the delay was certainly substantial, defendant expressly requested it,” she added, “he asked the government to hold off on prosecuting this action until he resolved his criminal case in state court.”