State Sen. Wayne Bryant, D-Camden, was acquitted Friday of allegations of fraud related to the failed Meadowlands EnCap golf and housing project and other New Jersey brownfield developments.
Here’s how I explained the prosecution’s case against Bryant (and the late Eric Wisler) in a fall 2010 Meadowlands Matters blog note. [I spent 18 months investigating the EnCap project with colleague Jeff Pillets, the author of today's story, although our focus was not on Bryant.]
And now, reviewing the 43-page verdict of U.S. District Court Judge Freda Wolfson.
“Essentially, the Government accuses Bryant of taking, or failing to take, official action to benefit certain entities related to Cherokee Investment Partners (“Cherokee”) in exchange for a stream of bribe payments, disguised as a legal retainer agreement, negotiated and paid by co-defendant Eric Wisler, Cherokee’s lead counsel in New Jersey,” is how Wolfson kicks off her ruling.
“I find that the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bryant intended to take certain official action at the behest of Wisler, a necessary element of all the charges against Bryant.”
In 2004, according to testimony, Wisler met with Bryant and asked whether Bryant – also an attorney – could help to develop a “joint venture relationship [for Cherokee] with the United States Conference of Mayors (“USCM”). Bryant suggested that his firm might be interested, for a fee of $8,000 a month. The deal was then signed a that price, and Bryant’s firm was also to help with the Rutherford/Lyndhurst EnCap project as well as a second phase in North Arlington.
“[T]here is no dispute that [Bryant's] Firm did little or no work for Cherokee pursuant to the Retainer Agreement. The Zeller Firm received the $8,000 retainer fee for twenty-five months, for a total of $192,000,” the judge writes.
Wolfson adds that in 2005, Bryant voted to back several bills authorizing $244 million in loans toward the Meadowlands EnCap project, as well as other bills favorable to Cherokee. In numerous cases, evidence was offered of Wisler seeking help from Bryant in advancing or stalling various bills related to Cherokee.
There were 20 counts of “honest services mail fraud” against Bryant; another for soliciting, accepting, and agreeing to accept a stream
of corrupt payments from Wisler;” and another for extorting payments from Wisler.
The judge notes that on the 20 counts, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “(1) that “the payor provided a benefit to a public official intending that he w[ould] thereby take favorable official acts that he would not otherwise take,” and (2) that “the official accepted those benefits intending, in exchange for the benefits, to take official acts to benefit the payor.””
Also, importantly, “The Government need only prove that the official
corruptly solicited, demanded, accepted or agreed to accept a thing
of value that was, in whole or in part, either influenced or rewarded, or both, in exchange for his official action and
assistance.”
Wolfson writes that one interpretation of the $200,000 in payments was that Bryant’s firm was “on retainer” for projects that simply never got far enough along to require the firms’ expertise.
Meanwhile, the judge writes that “the evidence tends to prove the motivation behind [the late] Wisler’s actions rather than those of Bryant. Importantly, however, Wisler’s intent cannot be imputed to Bryant in a bribery context – the Government has to separately establish the official’s own intent.”
Also, Wolfson adds, the fact that no one else at Wisler’s law firm “tend to prove [Wisler's] intent to influence rather than Bryant’s
intent to be influenced.”
Bryant’s co-equal law partner, meanwhile, testified that he was aware of the deal – undercutting the state’s case that Bryant also worked to conceal the arrangement, according to the ruling.
“Even less compelling is the Government’s position that because
certain official acts that Bryant took directly benefitted Cherokee,
Bryant must have taken them with the corrupt intent to further the
alleged bribery scheme,” the judge continues. “As evidence, the Government introduced a number of bills that Bryant supported which tended to favor Cherokee….. as the Government concedes, these bills were not only passed unanimously by the State Senate in 2005, they were passed unanimously without debate by all members of the Senate
voting from 2002 through 2006…
“In sum, in light of the evidence, there are two ways to
interpret Bryant’s official actions: Bryant voted in such a manner
with intent to fulfill his end of the corrupt arrangement with
Wisler, or – a considerably more plausible conclusion – Bryant’s
actions were typical of his legislative agenda,” the judge concluded.
