Prior to closing arguments, the Bridge(t)-Gate judge formally reviewed and explained the charges to the jury:
Quote:
NorthJersey.com: The closing arguments in the six-week trial...were unexpectedly delayed...when...Judge Susan Wigenton sent the jury home, citing “legal issues.” (Both) prosecut(ion) and defense lawyers declined to explain the reason for the delay...
During a closed-door conference...lawyers hammered out language for the judge’s instructions to the jury...Wigenton decided that prosecutors do not need to prove that Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni closed the bridge access lanes with the intention of punishing the mayor of Fort Lee. "They are not charged with punishing Mayor Sokolich, they’re charged with misusing...the Port Authority resources,” Wigenton said (in) a court transcript...
“I thought I was defending a charge that...was an allegation that Bridget Kelly and Mr. Baroni entered into activity to intentionally punish Mayor Sokolich for not endorsing,” Kelly’s lawyer...told Wigenton, according to a transcript...“Now, I don’t know what I’m defending.”
...(But) Baroni’s attorney...lobbied the judge to include the language. “They tried a punishment case...They...brought this indictment; they called it punishment. That’s the case we’ve tried for six weeks...If they want, dismiss the indictment, see if they can re-indict... and we’ll come back.”
|
Kelly's lawyer is confusing motive and intent, and Baroni's lawyer is just plain confused. The issue isn't that people decided to punish Sokolich (and also, possibly,
the developer who beat out a David Samson client on a Ft. Lee real estate deal), but that they punished him by committing illegal acts.
Quote:
|
...(The) Assistant U.S. Attorney requested the judge remove the language... “(A)s a matter of law...the object of the conspiracy is to commit the substantive offense... (B)eyond that, it is superfluous.”
|
Maybe so, but conspiracy isn't the only thing they're being charged with. Besides, in America, the prosecution NEVER has to prove motive -- only that something illegal happened. If a jury agrees that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal act had indeed been committed, the reason WHY it was committed is what's superfluous -- the defendant is guilty.