ROXBURY (11/15/05) – Yet, another unusual development in the complicated case of the two township police officers who are accused with others of operating an illegal gambling enterprise in Dover from late last year until April of this year.

The former attorney for Sgt. Richard M. Winstock, Officer Thomas Juskus and four other people, including Winstock’s wife, Jennifer, has been ordered to testify before a Morris County grand jury concerning advice he gave them concerning the legality of the enterprise when they were presenting their proposal to the Dover Zoning Board a year ago last August.

The attorney, Amato Galasso of Ridgewood, has received a subpoena, which he says he plans to oppose. The subpoena was requested by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office.

The zoning board application, according to previous testimony, was for permission to operate a social club that would include card games such as poker, darts and pool games. The Prosecutor’s Office maintains however that there was little if anything else at the club when they raided it last April but gambling in poker games.

Galasso has hired another attorney, Marco A. Laracca, to quash the subpoena. Arguments on that motion are to be heard in Morristown on December 8. The Prosecutor’s Office is expected to file an opposition motion.

Winstock, 36, and Juskus, 43, are charged with four others, including Winstock’s wife, Jennifer, with misconduct, perjury, conspiracy and maintaining a gambling resort. Both officers have waived their lawyer-client privilege allowing Galasso to testify. The officers are planning a defense that they received bad legal advice.

Galasso, however, maintains he has not received permission to testify from the other defendants charged, Jennifer Winstock, Robin and Scott Furer.

Laracca has advised Galasso not to testify maintaining that the prosecutor could get him to talk about the case the state has against the defendants since he has refused to speak to the prosecutor’s office. He also could say something that would strengthen the state’s case against the defendants and also he could say something that could be used against him.