TRENTON — Two figures central to the state Legislature's investigation of the George Washington Bridge lane closings do not have to turn over records related to the scandal, a state judge ruled today, handing Democrats leading the inquiry a major defeat.

In a thorough dissection of the arguments made by the committee leading the investigation, state Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson found no basis to force Bridget Anne Kelly, Gov. Chris Christie's former deputy chief of staff, and Bill Stepien, his two-time campaign manager, to comply with its subpoenas.

The pair objected to the requests, issued in January, because they argued identifying and turning over records would violate their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. They called the committee's requests a fishing expedition. Jacobson agreed.

"While legislative committees in New Jersey have broad powers ... they do not have the authority to abrogate the Fifth Amendment," Jacobson wrote, later adding, "The subpoenas would require compelled testimonial evidence from Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien and thus run afoul of defendants' privilege against self-incrimination."

The 98-page decision was a major setback for the legislative investigation because its leaders considered the records held by Kelly and Stepien to be critical to understanding the politically charged motivations behind the September lane closings.

The scandal exploded in January when an e-mail from Kelly stating, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," first linked the closings to Christie's office.

The decision may also hamper future efforts by the committee to subpoena information. One of the state's most prominent criminal defense attorneys, Joseph Hayden, said it could also be viewed as persuasive by a federal judge should similar issues arise during the federal criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman's office.

A co-chairman of the legislative panel, John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex), said in a statement it would consult with its attorney, Reid Schar, on how to proceed.

"The committee felt it was very much in the public interest to seek to compel the production of these documents, but as we've said before, there's more than one method to gather information in an investigation, and we will consider alternatives," Wisniewski said.

An attorney for Stepien, Kevin Marino, said in a statement the ruling "represents a complete vindication" of his client.

"In its zeal to achieve a blatantly political goal having nothing to do with Mr. Stepien, the committee disregarded the fundamental constitutional rights of this innocent man," Marino said. "In the process, it wasted the taxpayers' money — and the nation's time — on a frivolous lawsuit to enforce a clearly invalid subpoena."

He added, "Three months ago, this innocent man was banished without cause from positions of trust and respect that he earned through fifteen years of diligence and excellence that made him the finest political consultant in America. The time has come to acknowledge that a mistake was made."

An attorney for Kelly, Michael Critchley, reiterated that his client was innocent.

"For all the naysayers who criticized Ms. Kelly for asserting her constitutional rights, Judge Jacobson's decision provides a free tutorial on the protections the Fifth Amendment affords all citizens," Critchley said.

In her ruling, Jacobson wrote that Stepien and Kelly were clearly at risk of self incrimination because of the investigation by the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, and turning over records "could provide a 'link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.'"

The judge said the subpoenas issued to the pair were "exceedingly broad," suggesting to the court that the committee had little knowledge of any particular documents that existed apart from communications it had already obtained through other means.

Jacobson said the argument that those communications — between Kelly and Stepien, and David Wildstein, a former Christie ally at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — suggested others existed was a "logical fallacy" and "not based on law."

"At best, the existence of more documents is the subject of reasonable speculation," she wrote.

Had the subpoenas only sought correspondences between Kelly, Stepien and Wildstein, Jacobson said, they may have been valid because the communications already in the committee's possession make the existence of other discussions a foregone conclusion.

Jacobson agreed with Kelly and Stepien's arguments that the act of producing documents would testify to the fact that they are authentic and relate to the lane closings, even if that is not apparent from what they contain.

And she dismissed the committee's argument that Kelly and Stepien could not claim a blanket right against self-incrimination, but must rather prove the privilege is proper for each document or set of documents they possess.

"A blanket subpoena calling for a fishing expedition without the promise of immunity justifies a blanket response," Jacobson wrote.

The judge also dismissed the committee's contention that Kelly and Stepien cannot claim Fifth Amendment protections because they were required by law, during their time as state employees, to maintain records, writing, "such an extension would require the waiver of self-incrimination rights of all public employees solely by virtue of their public employment."

Jacobson also ruled that the Legislature has the power to grant immunity, as had been disputed by the committee. But she said immunity would protect Kelly and Stepien in any subsequent prosecution including any resulting from the ongoing federal investigation.

"If, as the committee argues before this court, neither Mr. Stepien nor Ms. Kelly truly face the danger of prosecution, then there is no fear that a subsequent federal prosecution could be impeded by granting immunity," she wrote.

She also noted, however, that the immunity would only apply to each individual. Therefore, material produced by Kelly could be used against Stepien, and vice versa.

Star-Ledger staff writer Jason Grant contributed to this report.

RELATED COVERAGE

• Bridget Kelly's lawyer praises judge's ruling; again declares Kelly's innocence

• Timeline of Port Authority's George Washington Bridge controversy

• Complete coverage of bridge scandal







FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER POLITICS: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+