Digital Bulletin

PROVIDENCE -- The Roger Williams Medical Center corruption case has gone to the jury.

After a full day of closing arguments by the various lawyers, followed by an hour of legal instructions from the judge, a jury of eight women and four men officially received the case at 4:15 p.m.

About 15 minutes later, they returned to the courtroom, having opted not to stay late and deliberate, and Chief U.S. District Ernest C. Torres adjourned for the day.

Due to a death in the family of one juror, there will be no deliberations tomorrow. The jury will reconvene on Wednesday morning.

Robert A. Urciuoli, the former president of Roger Williams, is on trial along with former hospital executive Frances P. Driscoll and former Village at Elmhurst partner Peter J. Sangermano. The three are charged with stealing the honest services of John Celona, the longtime state senator who earned $260,000 as a consultant to The Village at Elmhurst from 1998 to early 2004.

In their closing statements this morning, lawyers for the prosecution and Urciuoli painted contrasting pictures of the voluminous evidence presented during three weeks of testimony. Both sides dwelled on whether the defendants intended to deceive the citizens of Rhode Island and steal Celona's honest services as a senator.

Asst. U.S. Atty. Luis Matos argued that the defendants deliberately concealed the true nature of Celona’s duties when they hired him as a consultant to the Village at Elmhurst, an assisted-living center, in 1997, saying that he would promote the Village among his wide network of senior citizens.

Even as they were in the process of obtaining an advisory opinion from the Rhode Island Ethics Commission regarding what Celona could and could not do in his job, Matos argued, they hid the fact that they were "tasking’’ the senator to use his political influence to kill legislation and to convince municipalities to increase their ambulance runs to Roger Williams.

"The defendants were willing and able purchasers of that office and they intended to deceive the citizens of Rhode Island,’’ charged Matos. "John Celona was hired to pursue their political interests and be their political errand boy.’’

Richard M. Egbert, Urciuoli’s lawyer, was quick to offer a differing interpretation of the documents, and to assail Celona’s credibility as a government witness who "lied and lied and lied to us continuously to save his rear end.’’

"The government’s case, like John Celona’s testimony, is built upon a failure of logic and a failure of common sense,’’ said Egbert.

While acknowledging that Celona is "a political opportunist’’ who has lied to the government, Matos also told jurors that his actions are supported by a mountain of evidence – a paper trail documenting his pursuits on behalf of the defendants.

"John Celona is a corrupt individual who has lied in the past,’’ said Matos. But, he added, there is a paper trail to support all of the key acts and charges.

Egbert said that the rmountain of documents the government relies on shows just the opposite – that the defendants kept a written record of their dealings with Celona because they had nothing to hide and no intent to commit a crime. They told their lawyers, they told the state Ethics Commission and they even broadcast Celona’s involvement on the senator’s cable-access television show.

In order to convict, Egbert told the jurors, "You need to embrace John Celona. You have to go home tonight and say, `I believe John Celona, beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and be able to sleep well. Good luck to you!’’

Pointing his finger at Matos, as Matos had pointed at the defendants during his closing, Egbert also accused the government of complicity in Celona’s lies and inconsistent statements.

"This is a case without intent,’’ said Egbert. "It’s a series of acts and conduct that doesn’t make any sense at all, unless that Bob Urciuoli and Fran Driscoll and Peter Sangermano never intended to violate any law.’’

Matos and Egbert each spoke for about an hour.

This afternoon, lawyers for Driscoll and Sangermano made similar closing arguments, followed by a brief rebuttal from Matos.