Sunday
Apr062008
Ex- Newark Mayor Sharpe James Holds Hope 2 Witnesses are Enough to Beat Corruption Charges
Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 01:45PM
The New York Times April 4, 2008
The federal case against Sharpe James was built on the testimony of 33 witnesses. His rebuttal comprised of two. And now the public corruption trial against Mr. James, the former mayor of Newark, is poised to move to the only pool of people that matters: the 12-member jury.
When testimony came to an end on Thursday, neither Mr. James, 72, nor his co-defendant and erstwhile companion, Tamika Riley, 39, had taken the witness stand in their own defense, instead relying on about a half-dozen witnesses to fend off fraud and conspiracy charges in their 13-count indictment.
''I put my faith in the court,'' Mr. James told Federal District Judge William J. Martini on Wednesday in explaining why he would not testify.
Mr. James, who was mayor and State Senator from 1986 to 2006, is accused of steering nine city-owned properties, beginning in 2001, to Ms. Riley for $46,000 during a time when they were having an affair. Ms. Riley is accused of quickly reselling the parcels in Newark's South Ward for $665,000 under a redevelopment program, largely without making improvements required by city contracts.
Ms. Riley, a publicist from Jersey City, is also accused of lying about her income to state officials to obtain $27,000 in low-income housing subsidies. She is also charged with tax evasion for not disclosing the profits from the sale of the properties.
Lawyers for Mr. James, who is married, have tried to blunt the prosecution's case with testimony that the mayor did not pressure anyone in city government to sell the properties to Ms. Riley. For her part, Ms. Riley's defense has centered on what her lawyers have suggested was bad advice from a circle of consultants whom she had retained.
On Thursday, a lawyer who handled the closings for seven of the properties that Ms. Riley had purchased acknowledged that he had little experience handling real estate matters.
The lawyer, James Ezeilo, testified that he was not aware that the city required Ms. Riley to renovate the properties before re-selling them.
Mr. Ezeilo, who had represented Ms. Riley in an earlier bankruptcy proceeding, acknowledged that real estate was not his usual practice area, but said that he worked with her because ''she needed help.''
On direct examination, Gerald Krovatin, Ms. Riley's lawyer, asked Mr. Ezeilo if he had read the deed associated with the sale of the property, or if he had even examined the terms of the contract that Ms. Riley had signed with the city.
''No,'' Mr. Ezeilo said.
Later, one of the prosecutors, Judith H. Germano, tried to undercut Mr. Ezeilo's testimony by asking if Ms. Riley had ever shown him the contract.
''No,'' he replied.
Though they sat just six feet apart, Mr. James and Ms. Riley were scrupulous about evading each other. During breaks, one would often wait at the L-shaped defense table until the other left the courtroom. In court, they did their best to avoid eye contact.
Making matters even more delicate was the presence of Mr. James's wife, Mary, who has attended nearly every court session. She sat impassively during the most cringe-inducing bits of testimony about her husband's affair.
On Tuesday, a friend of Ms. Riley's, Francine Pruitt, said that she had reservations about Ms. Riley's relationship with Mr. James.
''Why?'' asked Mr. Krovatin, Ms. Riley's lawyer.
''Because I knew he was married,'' Ms. Pruitt responded.
Mr. Krovatin asked Ms. Pruitt if she had ever expressed her concerns to Ms. Riley. ''I just told her to be careful,'' Ms. Pruitt said.
Like that of other witnesses, Ms. Pruitt's testimony suggested that Mr. James and Ms. Riley were romantically involved for about six months beginning in the spring of 2002. The timing of the relationship is significant: Mr. Krovatin argues that by the time Mr. James and Ms. Riley began their affair, she had already bought most of the nine properties from the city.
Lawyers are expected to give closing arguments on Monday.
When testimony came to an end on Thursday, neither Mr. James, 72, nor his co-defendant and erstwhile companion, Tamika Riley, 39, had taken the witness stand in their own defense, instead relying on about a half-dozen witnesses to fend off fraud and conspiracy charges in their 13-count indictment.
''I put my faith in the court,'' Mr. James told Federal District Judge William J. Martini on Wednesday in explaining why he would not testify.
Mr. James, who was mayor and State Senator from 1986 to 2006, is accused of steering nine city-owned properties, beginning in 2001, to Ms. Riley for $46,000 during a time when they were having an affair. Ms. Riley is accused of quickly reselling the parcels in Newark's South Ward for $665,000 under a redevelopment program, largely without making improvements required by city contracts.
Ms. Riley, a publicist from Jersey City, is also accused of lying about her income to state officials to obtain $27,000 in low-income housing subsidies. She is also charged with tax evasion for not disclosing the profits from the sale of the properties.
Lawyers for Mr. James, who is married, have tried to blunt the prosecution's case with testimony that the mayor did not pressure anyone in city government to sell the properties to Ms. Riley. For her part, Ms. Riley's defense has centered on what her lawyers have suggested was bad advice from a circle of consultants whom she had retained.
On Thursday, a lawyer who handled the closings for seven of the properties that Ms. Riley had purchased acknowledged that he had little experience handling real estate matters.
The lawyer, James Ezeilo, testified that he was not aware that the city required Ms. Riley to renovate the properties before re-selling them.
Mr. Ezeilo, who had represented Ms. Riley in an earlier bankruptcy proceeding, acknowledged that real estate was not his usual practice area, but said that he worked with her because ''she needed help.''
On direct examination, Gerald Krovatin, Ms. Riley's lawyer, asked Mr. Ezeilo if he had read the deed associated with the sale of the property, or if he had even examined the terms of the contract that Ms. Riley had signed with the city.
''No,'' Mr. Ezeilo said.
Later, one of the prosecutors, Judith H. Germano, tried to undercut Mr. Ezeilo's testimony by asking if Ms. Riley had ever shown him the contract.
''No,'' he replied.
Though they sat just six feet apart, Mr. James and Ms. Riley were scrupulous about evading each other. During breaks, one would often wait at the L-shaped defense table until the other left the courtroom. In court, they did their best to avoid eye contact.
Making matters even more delicate was the presence of Mr. James's wife, Mary, who has attended nearly every court session. She sat impassively during the most cringe-inducing bits of testimony about her husband's affair.
On Tuesday, a friend of Ms. Riley's, Francine Pruitt, said that she had reservations about Ms. Riley's relationship with Mr. James.
''Why?'' asked Mr. Krovatin, Ms. Riley's lawyer.
''Because I knew he was married,'' Ms. Pruitt responded.
Mr. Krovatin asked Ms. Pruitt if she had ever expressed her concerns to Ms. Riley. ''I just told her to be careful,'' Ms. Pruitt said.
Like that of other witnesses, Ms. Pruitt's testimony suggested that Mr. James and Ms. Riley were romantically involved for about six months beginning in the spring of 2002. The timing of the relationship is significant: Mr. Krovatin argues that by the time Mr. James and Ms. Riley began their affair, she had already bought most of the nine properties from the city.
Lawyers are expected to give closing arguments on Monday.
Reader Comments