Defense rests in Wright trial

In his dealings with two real estate developers and their lawyer, Philadelphia City Council aide Christopher Wright did a few things that might not look quite right, attorneys for him and his three codefendants acknowledged yesterday in closing arguments.

As chief of staff to City Councilman Jack Kelly, Wright tried to make real estate deals with brothers Ravinder and Hardeep Chawla, and took a $1,000 check from Hardeep Chawla.

He tried to get the Chawlas to use a company he was affiliated with so he could earn a commission. And he depended on their lawyer, Andrew Teitelman, to deal with some sticky situations, including a divorce, foreclosure on his house, and eviction from the apartment he inhabited.

Ravinder Chawla was so pleased with Wright's help in City Hall in November 2006 that he offered to hire him as a consultant.

"Looks kind of bad, doesn't it?" William DeStefano, Teitelman's attorney, asked the jury regarding that offer.

But the Chawlas did not help Wright achieve his real estate aspirations, and Wright turned down their offer of employment.

And the close relationship the Chawlas shared with Wright and Kelly shows that they neither wanted nor needed to bribe Wright, defense attorneys argued.

"You might find a basis to criticize Mr. Wright's behavior, but you will not find a basis to convict him," Lisa Mathewson, Wright's attorney, told the jury.

Wright is charged with selling his office for $1,000, a free Rittenhouse Square apartment, free parking space, and free legal help from the Chawlas and Teitelman.

Those favors were given to Wright when he desperately needed them between 2005 and 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Bresnick pointed out. And they coincided with repeated requests from the Chawlas for Wright's help with real estate matters, legislation, delinquent taxes and utility bills, and a reference letter from Kelly.

Bresnick said the government needed to prove only that the public official was given a stream of benefits so he would be a "public official on call."

"The problem here, and the real harm in bribing a public official, is it buys you access that the ordinary citizen wouldn't have," Bresnick said.

Jurors listened to closing arguments from Bresnick and four defense attorneys after 10 days of testimony. They broke for the long weekend and will return Tuesday to finish hearing instructions from Judge Eduardo C. Robreno and begin deliberations.

The defense has argued that the Chawlas, friends to Kelly and among the top contributors to his campaigns in 2003 and 2007, were already important constituents who did not need to go through Wright to get to Kelly. Wright and Kelly testified that Wright was just doing his job.

"It defies common sense that Hardeep or any of these gentlemen had to bribe Chris Wright to obtain anything from Jack Kelly," said William Winning, Hardeep Chawla's attorney. "He helped the man get elected."

Winning said Hardeep Chawla's giving Wright a gift by check, which was entered in the company ledger and which Wright disclosed in public documents, was not the way bribes are paid.

"Bribes are paid in brown paper bags in the middle of the night, secret, not disclosed, don't tell anyone," Winning said. "He did it as an act of generosity, out of concern for a friend."

DeStefano came back to the point he began the trial with: that his client, Teitelman, and Wright were best friends, and that Teitelman helped his friend through a difficult divorce, alcoholism, and financial troubles.

"You don't have to bribe your friends," DeStefano said.

Tom Bergstrom, finishing the closing arguments as Ravinder Chawla's attorney, argued that interactions among Wright, Teitelman and the Chawlas were good for the city. For instance, he said, their dealings resulted in a law that allows unmanned mechanical parking garages that will help save space, and reduce traffic and pollution.