Rowland's attorney said he hoped jurors would ignore the fact that Rowland had already gone to jail.
Closing arguments ended on Thursday afternoon in the federal criminal trial of former Connecticut Governor John Rowland, and now the case is in the hands of the jury.
Throughout the course of the day, jurors heard two very different takes on the same events. Prosecutors allege that Rowland conspired to hide work for a two political campaigns by trying to get paid through a private business. In one case, he succeeded.
"What was he getting paid for? What was he getting paid for?" Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Mattei asked repeatedly. "Ladies and gentlemen, you know what happened here. Use your common sense. That’s what this is all about. You know what happened here. Mr. Rowland was selling one thing: his ability to get someone elected."
Because it couldn’t be publicly known, Mattei said, "that’s why he was paid in secret.”
Reid Weingarten, Rowland’s attorney, took the opposite approach. His client was “larger than life,” an “8,000 pound gorilla” whose actions it was impossible to keep secret. And, more importantly, Weingarten said the campaign work Rowland did for Lisa Wilson-Foley in 2012 was strictly volunteer, while the work for which he got paid by her husband Brian Foley was legitimate, real-deal consulting.
“I have no doubt that Brian Foley wanted him at the campaign helping Lisa [Wilson-Foley],” Weingarten said. “But he can work for Apple and do real work at the same time.”
"Mr. Rowland was selling one thing: his ability to get someone elected," argued prosecutor Christopher Mattei.
The morning started off with lengthy instruction from Judge Janet Bond Arterton. “As members of the jury, you are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts,” she told jurors as Rowland, members of his family, and a packed courtroom listened.
The judge instructed the jury on the conspiracy charges he faces. She told the jury that the conspiracy didn’t have to be expressly discussed or agreed upon. "In the context of conspiracy cases, actions often speak louder than words," she said.
The prosecution made its closing arguments first. In them, Mattei, the prosecutor, told the jury that this case was about basic civics.
"This is a case that goes to the very heart of the most basic right we have as American citizens, and that's the right to vote," Mattei told jurors. In both 2010 and 2010 and an earlier election, he said, Rowland tried to deprive voters of the information they need to exercise that crucial right by hiding his campaign work.
His most valuable asset was his political experience and expertise, his strategic mind, and his knowledge of the district, Mattei said. Because of his prior federal conviction, "Mr. Rowland couldn’t sell his most valuable asset in the open market," Mattei told jurors. "But if he could keep it hidden, well, then, maybe he could. That’s what he tried to do in 2010 and 2012."
Rowland's attorney asked for a verdict of not guilty on all counts, saying, "It was John trying to work, and that’s not a crime."
By faking contracts to hide his campaign work, Mattei said, Rowland was trying to ensure that “the public would never know that Mr. Rowland was steering these campaigns with an invisible hand. That’s what this case is about.”
The government also alleges that Rowland broke the law by making false entries in a contract with Greenberg, who is now running again for that same congressional seat. Rowland wanted to be paid through Greenberg’s animal shelter for work on the campaign.
During trial, Greenberg told the court that he never entered into the agreement, because he thought it was illegal. He also thought it was expensive because Rowland wanted $35,000 a month.
"This whole thing is a sham, because who is going to pay somebody $35,000 a month to raise a little money for an animal shelter? Please," Mattei said during closing arguments. "Mr. Rowland is proposing to be paid over the course of this contract three quarters of a million dollars. To raise money for an animal shelter? Or to capitalize on his most valuable asset: his political expertise?"
Mattei then walked through, day-by-day, event-by-event, each of the two campaigns. With Greenberg’s campaign, Mattei said witnesses characterized the former governor as "begging" for work and "desperate."
Check out our newest TV ad. I would be honored to have your support this Tuesday, August 14 in the Republican Primary http://t.co/iBJvrJyE
— Lisa Wilson Foley (@wilsonfoley) August 10, 2012
When it came to the Wilson-Foley campaign, Mattei went back in time to demonstrate how little work Rowland did for the campaign before he started getting paid, and how much he did after.
The difference, Mattei said the evidence showed, was astounding. The email volume shot through the roof. The meetings with staff went from almost none to almost daily.
Meanwhile, Mattei said, the work Rowland did for Brian Foley’s nursing home business was negligible.
The Defense Presents Its Case
After lunch, Reid Weingarten, Rowland’s attorney, addressed the jury. He pressed a very simple point: Rowland could do two things at once.
“I have no doubt that Brian Foley wanted him at the campaign helping Lisa [Wilson-Foley],” Weingarten said. “But he can work for Apple and do real work at the same time.”
Weingarten brought up various emails between Rowland and people at Apple. In one email, Brian Foley and executive Brian Bedard talk about scheduling a meeting with Rowland.
“It’s not like, ‘Oh my god, do we have to deal with this phony? Do we have to deal with this fake anymore?’” Weingarten said, imagining what Bedard could have been thinking. “That’s not what this contract says, and you know that’s not what he thought. ...When you look through the emails, and you see substantive information being exchanged, ask yourself, ‘Why would they be doing it if this was all a fake?”
The same, Weingarten said, was true with Rowland’s emails about helping the company.
“Ask yourself this. If this is a sham, all fake, all b.s., why are they bothering sending information back and forth about the guts and substance of their business?” he asked. “And the only explanation is there was a bonafide, legitimate interest on Apple’s part for him to be kept up to speed on the issues.”
Rowland's attorney said Brian Foley was a liar who set out to have Rowland do real work at Apple. He said once federal prosecutors realized Foley had potentially broken laws by funneling money to his wife's campaign, they had him in a bind.
Weingarten also took aim at Brian Foley himself. First, he said he was controlling and manipulative. “Interesting guy, puppet master, completely capable of doing whatever he thinks he wants to do,” Weingarten said.
More to the point, Weingarten said Foley was a liar. In fact, he said, Foley set out to have Rowland do real work at Apple, but once federal prosecutors realized that he had potentially broken various campaign finance laws by funneling money to his wife’s campaign through friends, family, and employees, they had him in a bind. Weingarten said that’s when Foley “flipped.”
When he did, Foley became a pawn of the government, Weingarten said. “He was so scripted,” he said. “He spent more time with prosecutors than a trained seal spends with a trainer before he goes on the show. He was so scripted.”
Rowland’s own pitch for Lisa Wilson-Foley, Weingarten said – pages of handwritten notes on her campaign and his political assets – was proof that he wasn’t trying to hide anything.
"He’s larger than life," Weingarten said. "You love him or hate him. That’s just the deal. He has phenomenal value politically, and there are huge down sides... he can’t make a move in Connecticut without everybody knowing it. That’s just the truth. The idea that he’s Mr. Stealth, and he goes from one campaign to another to sneak gigs, is completely belied by this."
Again, he said Rowland is a guy you can’t hide.
“Again, this idea that you’re hiding John Rowland absolutely makes no sense,” Weingarten said. “And the idea that you’re going to hide it through a contract... runs into reality, and it’s the reality of John Rowland.”
As he wrapped up, Weingarten told jurors that he hopes they don’t hold the nastiness of politics against Rowland. “This is hardcore fighting, right-wing, hardcore stuff, and I’m guessing not everyone in the courtroom supports this,” he said. “It’s politics, and some of you may find it hideous. But that’s not this case.”
In the end, he said the government hadn’t proven its case. What Rowland did wasn’t criminal. It was just a guy trying to get by.
“It was John trying to work,” Weingarten said, “and that’s not a crime.” He asked for a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
Prosecutor Christopher Mattei had a few minutes to respond.
"This is just politics, that’s what he says," Mattei said, recalling Weingarten’s closing. "This isn’t politics. This is about hiding from the public [what] the public has a right to know... That’s not politics. That’s a crime."
The jurors are deliberating.
