Attorney Michael Critchley speaks to the press. | Kevin R. Wexler/The Record via AP Bridgegate defense attorney rages as judge deals setback

NEWARK — Jurors in the George Washington Bridge lane closure case were instructed on Tuesday afternoon that they can find the defendants guilty of conspiracy even if the two former allies of Gov. Chris Christie weren't motivated by political revenge.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Wigenton — in response to a question submitted by jurors — seemed to deeply anger defense attorneys, who argued that the defendants believed the lane closures were part of a legitimate traffic study, rather than a scheme to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Christie for reelection in 2013.


Michael Critchley, the lead attorney for Bridget Anne Kelly, visibly reacted to Wigenton’s ruling, prompting the judge to chastise him for not keeping his opinion to himself.

Critchley sat brooding, staring forward and shaking his head as she spoke. Then, even after she made her decision clear, he rose to challenge it.

“By answering the way you’re answering, you’re directing a verdict of guilty,” Critchley said, in one of the tensest moments since the trial began six weeks ago. “You’re directing a verdict of guilty.”

Kelly, Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, the Christie-appointed former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were indicted last May on charges of conspiracy, fraud and civil rights violations.

They are accused of manufacturing traffic jams by closing local access lanes to the bridge — the world’s busiest — in order to punish Democrat Mark Sokolich for not endorsing Christie.

The jurors began their deliberations on Monday afternoon and resumed their work on Tuesday morning. By lunchtime, they had two questions for the judge to address, most notably about how the intent of the defendants played into their decision.

The key question the jurors asked was whether the defendants "can ... be guilty of conspiracy without the act being intentionally punitive toward Mayor Sokolich."

Though jurors didn’t know it, the question hit on an issue that had already prompted an angry debate last week when the defense attorneys, prosecutors and the judge met to discuss the jury instructions.

Wigenton decided last week to remove from her instructions almost any mention of the reason prosecutors say Kelly and Baroni decided to close several lanes: punishing Sokolich, whose name is mentioned 80 times in the indictment but was mentioned only once in passing during Wigenton's instructions.

The judge had sided with prosecutors with the U.S. attorney's office, who have said that “the object of the conspiracy” was not relevant to the charges of misusing and conspiring to misuse Port Authority property.

Critchley and Michael Baldassare, Baroni's lawyer, noted on Tuesday that the punishment of Sokolich is specifically mentioned in the indictment as charge of the conspiracy charge. Critchley also noted it is key to their primary defense strategy, known as the “good faith defense,” which holds that they can’t be found guilty if they honestly didn’t know what was going on.

“The punishment is right in the words of the good faith defense,” Critchley argued.

Beyond the issue of intent, the jurors also asked the judge whether it was legal for prosecutors to meet with the star witness in the case without making the two defendants aware of the discussions.

“Is it legal to prepare a case without the defendant’s knowledge or representation?” the jurors asked in a note to Wigenton, saying their question was in reference to meetings the government had with David Wildstein, the controversial Christie appointee to the Port Authority who is the admitted mastermind of the scheme.

Wigenton ultimately told jurors that doing so was appropriate, sending a note that indicated it “is legal for each side to meet with witnesses, with or without the other side being present, with or without representation.”

The attorneys for the two defendants strongly objected to giving the jury such a response, saying the jurors should be referred back to the instructions they had been given.

Baldassare spent a significant amount of time during the trial asking Wildstein about the numerous meetings he had with prosecutors and FBI agents in the years leading up to the trial. He noted that neither he nor his client were present for any of those meetings, appearing to suggest that they were wrongly kept in the dark.

Baldassare urged Wigenton not to answer the question, saying it could prejudice jurors.

“If the court says yes, your Honor is vouching for the prosecution and impeaching me because of the arguments that were presented,” he said in U.S. District Court on Tuesday afternoon.

Assistant U.S. Attorney David Feder said it was “a straightforward legal question with a straightforward legal answer.

“Those interviews occurred pre-trial, in some instance a year-and-a-half or two years before trial,” he said, adding that “the record should reflect that the government invited both defendants to meet” with witnesses.

The debate over the legal issues had the prosecution and defense angrily sniping at each other. Feder interrupted Critchley at one point to suggest the loud argument to the court could be heard by jurors.

“Take it down a notch,” Feder said.

“The court tells me what to do, not you,” Critchley yelled back.

“Relax,” Wigenton said. “Relax.”

She later said, “You guys are too much.”

“You’re so feisty,” she said, prior to Critchley's angry response to her ruling. “Just relax.”