Appeals court upholds most convictions in ‘Bridgegate’ case |

Appeals court upholds most convictions in ‘Bridgegate’ case

The Associated Press
This combination of March 29, 2017, file photos shows Bridget Kelly, left, leaving federal court after sentencing in Newark, N.J., and Bill Baroni leaving federal court after sentencing in Newark.

NEWARK, N.J. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld most of the convictions against two former allies of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge lane-closing case, a scandal that helped derail Christie’s presidential hopes in 2016.

Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni were convicted in 2016 in the alleged plot to cause traffic jams to punish a mayor for not endorsing Christie’s re-election bid.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Tuesday dismissed a count of civil rights conspiracy for each defendant, but upheld convictions for wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and misapplying property of an organization receiving federal funds. Baroni and Kelly had sought to have all counts dismissed.

The civil rights count carried a 10-year maximum prison sentence, while the wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy convictions each carry a maximum of 20 years. The misapplying property charge is punishable by up to five years.

Both are expected to be resentenced. Kelly currently faces an 18-month sentence, while Baroni faces 24 months. They also could request to have the full 3rd Circuit hear the case.

Their attorneys didn’t immediately comment on Tuesday’s ruling.

In their court filings, the lawyers for Kelly and Baroni had argued their convictions on the civil rights charges were based on a right to intrastate travel that has not been recognized by the Supreme Court.

Kelly was the author of the infamous “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” email a month before three access lanes to the bridge were reduced to one, without warning to local authorities.

The massive gridlock over four days and part of a fifth in September 2013 mushroomed into a scandal dubbed “Bridgegate” that dragged down Christie’s presidential aspirations and, Christie later conceded, played a role in then-Republican nominee Donald Trump’s decision not to name him as his running mate.

Baroni was deputy executive director at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge, and Kelly was Christie’s deputy chief of staff. A third defendant, David Wildstein, a former high school classmate of Christie’s who reported to Baroni at the Port Authority, pleaded guilty and testified against Baroni and Kelly.

Trial testimony by the defendants and several others contradicted Christie’s account of when he knew about the traffic jams. Christie was never charged and denied prior knowledge or involvement in the alleged scheme.

Kelly and Baroni also argued in their appeals that the wire fraud charges they were convicted of were improperly based on actions that didn’t deprive the government of money or property, and that the government misapplied the law governing fraudulent use of facilities receiving more than $5,000 in federal funds.

The defendants also asked unsuccessfully for a mistrial because U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton instructed the jury that it didn’t have to find the government had proved the existence of a politically motivated plot behind the lane realignment in order to find the defendants guilty.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.