Jurors enter sixth day of deliberations in Newark ex-Mayor Sharpe James' trial
Wednesday - 04/16/08 Filed in: Online
Jeff Whelan and John Martin/The Star-Ledger
Wednesday April 16, 2008, 5:15 AM
Jurors in the corruption trial of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James returned to court this morning for their sixth day of deliberations after failing to reach a verdict Tuesday.
The panel of six men and six women spent most of Tuesday behind closed doors weighing the conspiracy and fraud charges against James and Tamika Riley, his co-defendant and one-time mistress.
The jurors at one point sent a note to U.S. District Judge William Martini asking him to clarify the difference between evidence or testimony and the written law.
"Does one bear more weight in decision making?" their note said.
The question was the third jurors have asked since last Wednesday afternoon, when the panel first began deliberating.
Neither the judge nor attorneys in the case publicly speculated on what the questions might suggest about the closed-door deliberations. After consulting with the attorneys, Martini told the jurors they should apply the law as he instructed them at the end of trial, but that they alone would judge the credibility or importance of testimony and evidence.
The latest question came after jurors asked for testimony from Joanne Watson, the corporation counsel for Newark under James, to be read to them. Watson, who advised the mayor's office and administration on legal affairs for the city, testified for more than two hours last month.
The jury did not say on Monday why it wanted to hear Watson's testimony, so the judge ordered that her entire transcript be read aloud. The read back concluded Tuesday morning.
Riley, 39, a Jersey City entrepreneur, paid $46,000 for nine city-owned properties between 2001 and 2005 and resold them, sometimes within weeks, for more than $600,000. Prosecutors contend she defrauded the city by buying the properties without rehabbing them as promised. Riley also faces housing fraud and tax charges for allegedly lying about her real estate profits and income.
They say James had a duty to disclose his romantic relationship with Riley when he signed city contracts to sell the land to her. James and Riley did not testify during the trial but have denied the charges through attorneys.
Wednesday April 16, 2008, 5:15 AM
Jurors in the corruption trial of former Newark Mayor Sharpe James returned to court this morning for their sixth day of deliberations after failing to reach a verdict Tuesday.
The panel of six men and six women spent most of Tuesday behind closed doors weighing the conspiracy and fraud charges against James and Tamika Riley, his co-defendant and one-time mistress.
The jurors at one point sent a note to U.S. District Judge William Martini asking him to clarify the difference between evidence or testimony and the written law.
"Does one bear more weight in decision making?" their note said.
The question was the third jurors have asked since last Wednesday afternoon, when the panel first began deliberating.
Neither the judge nor attorneys in the case publicly speculated on what the questions might suggest about the closed-door deliberations. After consulting with the attorneys, Martini told the jurors they should apply the law as he instructed them at the end of trial, but that they alone would judge the credibility or importance of testimony and evidence.
The latest question came after jurors asked for testimony from Joanne Watson, the corporation counsel for Newark under James, to be read to them. Watson, who advised the mayor's office and administration on legal affairs for the city, testified for more than two hours last month.
The jury did not say on Monday why it wanted to hear Watson's testimony, so the judge ordered that her entire transcript be read aloud. The read back concluded Tuesday morning.
Riley, 39, a Jersey City entrepreneur, paid $46,000 for nine city-owned properties between 2001 and 2005 and resold them, sometimes within weeks, for more than $600,000. Prosecutors contend she defrauded the city by buying the properties without rehabbing them as promised. Riley also faces housing fraud and tax charges for allegedly lying about her real estate profits and income.
They say James had a duty to disclose his romantic relationship with Riley when he signed city contracts to sell the land to her. James and Riley did not testify during the trial but have denied the charges through attorneys.