And now the tense wait for the verdict. The jury in the Bridgegate trial deliberated throughout the day. Cameras are not allowed in federal court, but NJTV News Chief Political Correspondent Michael Aron has been there throughout the trial.
Aron: The defendants and their lawyers look happy in these file photos, but this is not the way they were looking in the hallway outside courtroom 5C today.
That’s because they lost on two jury questions.
In its first full day of deliberation, the jury this morning sent out this question: “Is it legal to prepare a case without the defendants’ knowledge and legal representation?”
The question seemed to refer to the fact that government prosecutors met with chief accuser David Wildstein 25 times over three years, many of them before Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni were even indicted.
Judge Susan Wigenton, however, instructed jurors that it is perfectly OK for the government to meet with its star witness without the defendants’ knowledge.
An hour later, jurors sent out a second question to the judge: “Can the defendants be guilty of conspiracy without being intentionally punitive towards Mayor Sokolich?”
In other words, can they be found guilty even if they thought they were conducting a traffic study?
“No, they can’t,” cried Bridget Kelly’s attorney Michael Critchley. “If they acted in good faith and didn’t have punitive intent, they must be acquited.”
But Judge Wigenton ruled otherwise. “It doesn’t matter what their objective was. What matters is that they conspired to misuse Port Authority resources,” she said.
The defense lawyers looked upset and frustrated at that point.
Critchley shot back, “By acting the way you’re acting, Judge, you’re directing a verdict of guilty.”
There are a total nine counts against the defendants, three of them conspiracy counts: conspiracy to misuse Port Authority resources, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to deprive the residents of Fort Lee of their civil right to unrestricted travel.
This afternoon came a third question from the jury: “Can the defendants be guilty of conspiracy without being guilty of the underlying act? And can they be guilty of the underlying act without being guilty of conspiracy?”
Government Prosecutor David Feder formulated the answer to that question and the judge accepted it: “Each count is to be evaluated independently, and each defendant is to be evaluated individually as to each count.”
The jury broke for the day without reaching a verdict. Outside the courthouse, defense attorneys stepped up to the mics but had little to say:
Aron: How optimistic are you of the verdict you’re looking for?
Critchley: Well, I’m optimistic. The jury’s deliberating and basically during the course of deliberations and I will not comment and I think that’s the appropriate thing to do.
Reporter: You said the judge’s decision was essentially rendering a guilty verdict. Do you have any comment on that?
Critchley: No, I have no comments beyond the comments I made in the courtroom. Thank you.
Michael Baldassare: Nothing really to say. Jury’s still deliberating, they’re clearly taking their time and at this point that’s really all we can ask for.
Aron: How long do you think it will go?
Baldassare: No idea how long they’ll go.
And so deliberations will resume tomorrow morning.