The jurors spent a first full day of deliberations Tuesday considering the federal case against Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, two former aides to Gov. Chris Christie. Watch video
NEWARK -- Jurors in the George Washington Bridge lane closure scandal criminal trial spent about seven hours behind closed doors Tuesday deliberating charges against two former Gov. Chris Christie aides.
Former Port Authority executive Bill Baroni and Bridget Anne Kelly, the governor's former deputy chief of staff, each face seven federal charges as part of a nine-count indictment against them for their alleged roles in the Bridgegate scandal.
A third person, David Wildstein, pleaded guilty to crimes for his role in the George Washington Bridge lane closures and testified against Baroni and Kelly. Wildstein said the scheme was an act of political retaliation against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich for not endorsing Christie's 2013 re-election bid.
Jurors return Wednesday morning to continue deliberations.
The three questions asked throughout the day focused on the first two counts of the nine-count indictment alleging conspiracy and fraud and sparked heated moments in the courtroom between attorneys -- and, at one point, between the defense and Judge Susan Wigenton.
Is conspiracy a crime if no intent of revenge?
Here are three of the questions jurors wrote on a piece of paper and passed from the jury room Tuesday, read by the judge to the court:
1. "Regarding the government meeting with Wildstein, unbeknownst to Baroni or Kelly. Is it legal to prepare a case without the defendants' knowledge or legal representation?"
Jurors questioned whether it was proper for prosecutors to have a series of meetings with Wildstein without the knowledge of defense attorneys, who have repeatedly focused on the number of times the former Republican operative met with the government. The defense attorneys have suggested he had been coached before he went on the witness stand.
The judge told the jury it was legal for each side to meet with witnesses, with or without the other side being present.
The discussion led to a pointed exchange between Michael Critchley, Kelly's lawyer, and Assistant U.S. Attorney David Feder, who stood up to say Critchley was "speaking extraordinarily loud" and question whether the jury was able to hear the discussion.
"They should should not be able to hear it," the judge responded.
"Take it down a notch," Feder interjected.
Critchley turned toward the prosecution and asserted, "Mr. Feder, the court tells me what to do, not you."
"Take it down a notch," Feder repeated as he sat down in his chair.
"The court tells me what to do, not you," Critchley again said, while a striking a more firm tone.
"Relax, relax," the judge instructed.
2. "Can you be guilty of conspiracy without the act being intentionally punitive toward Mayor Sokolich?"
At issue was whether whether Kelly and Baroni could be found guilty of conspiracy, if their intent had not been to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich.
Wigenton said the answer was "yes."
Critchley, without success, insisted the jury could not find either defendant guilty unless prosecutors had proved that they knew the lane shutdowns were punitive in nature. He noted that the indictment itself spelled out that the object of the alleged conspiracy was retribution aimed at Sokolich, and said the response to the jury's question could only be "no."
"Any other answer would be amending the indictment," he said. "You have to be guilty of the indictment."
But Feder said the purpose or motive was not an element of the conspiracy.
"That's the law," he said. "That they agreed to participate in a conspiracy."
"You can be guilty of a conspiracy without this specific purpose," the judge told prosecutors and defense attorneys.
But Critchley argued strongly against the judge's response. "By answering the way you are answering, you are directing a verdict of guilty. That's what you're doing, judge," he declared, before dropping back into his chair, as if deflated.
The judge immediately chastised him.
"All right. Thank you, Mr. Critchley," Wigenton said.
Critchley, staring at the table in front of him, nearly interrupted: "You're welcome, judge."
3. "Can the defendant be found guilty or not guilty of Count 2 without being found guilty or not guilty of Count 1? Or, must they be found guilty or not guilty of Count 1 before?"
With little argument between the prosecutors and defense counsel, the judge sent back a reply instructing the panel to evaluate each count of the indictment independently, without regard to any of the other charges.
Matt Arco may be reached at marco@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewArco or on Facebook. Follow NJ.com Politics on Facebook.
Ted Sherman may be reached at tsherman@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TedShermanSL. Facebook: @TedSherman.reporter.