PROVIDENCE — A 12-person jury was expected to start deliberating this morning on whether ex-Lincoln Town Administrator Jonathan F. Oster is guilty of bribery and conspiracy or just bad judgment in his choice of friends.

Though there were many supporting issues and arguments in the case, both the prosecution and defense yesterday in closing arguments made their strongest pitch on a critical meeting between Oster and then-friend, political ally and Planning Board member Robert R. Picerno on Feb. 16, 2002.

The meeting is important because the state has charged Oster with two counts of bribery and two counts of conspiracy, saying he and Picerno twice schemed to extort bribes from potential buyers of a 6-acre piece of town-controlled land on Route 116 called the H&H Screw property.

Assistant Attorney General Bethany Macktaz said the tapes of the meeting showed two conspirators sharing the fruits of their illegal plan: a $10,000 bribe. Defense lawyer C. Leonard O’Brien said the tapes were simply another con job by Picerno, an extortionist who, less than two days after his own arrest, was doing whatever he could to get the state police to let him off easy.

In 2004, Picerno pleaded no contest to four counts of taking or trying to solicit bribes, and three counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes.

Macktaz told the jury that other taped conversations between Oster and Picerno showed two close confidants exchanging gossip, complaining about common enemies and commiserating about their personal lives.

How the jury perceives the relationship is crucial to the case. Oster is charged with being part of a conspiracy with Picerno. If the state can convince the jury that a conspiracy existed between the two men, Oster’s legal exposure increases exponentially. In his charge to the jury, Associate Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia explained that if a criminal conspiracy existed, that in itself is a crime. The state wouldn’t have to prove a bribe was ever paid, only that Picerno and Oster schemed to get it.

All members of a conspiracy are culpable for the acts of other conspirators whether they knew what they were doing or not, Indeglia said. One conspirator could even order another not to commit a specific crime, but if the other did it anyway, both are equally liable.

Or, as Macktaz put it, “Mr. Oster is criminally responsible for all of Mr. Picerno’s actions, even if he wasn’t there.”

Picerno went to the Feb. 16, 2002, meeting at Oster’s private law office wearing state police transmitters. A trooper was stationed outside videotaping.

Macktaz pointed to what she said was the key moment in the meeting. At the time, Picerno had been meeting over several weeks with contractors David Wayne Daniel and Robert Gelfuso — who were working with the state police — to get them to pay a $25,000 bribe in exchange for getting the town to sell them the H&H property for $105,000. Picerno went to Oster’s office with an envelope stuffed with $10,000 in cash that he was to say was from Daniel.

On the video, while Oster and Picerno are standing outside, Picerno puts the envelope in a metal mailbox, saying “All right, that’s from Wayne, for that H&H [expletive].” The envelope with the cash was found in Oster’s office later in the day when police searched it.

“There’s the proof,” Macktaz said. “The hard, direct evidence to convict this man.”

There were other moments she pointed to. The session began inside Oster’s office but he tells Picerno that police can bug law offices and tries to get Picerno to go into the bathroom with him; Picerno demurs, and they go outside instead. Macktaz said that fear of eavesdropping was evidence as well.

“He’s afraid of law enforcement,” Macktaz said. “What administrator who is doing the lawful business of the town is worried about that?”

But O’Brien said the tape was significant for what it didn’t have — that lack of evidence was evidence. He said none of the conversations the state had recorded between the two men has any discussion of the bribery scheme. Oster never asks for the money, he said, or an update on the conspiracy.

At the Feb. 16 meeting, Picerno placed the envelope in a mailbox, O’Brien said, not Oster’s hands. Picerno didn’t say “here’s the money,” O’Brien said, because Picerno knew that Oster would’ve rejected it.

The defense was hindered because Picerno was “legally unavailable” to appear at the trial and could not be cross-examined. O’Brien told the jury to think of the questions it would ask of him as they watched the tape. He said the prosecution was trying to paper over those weaknesses with a closing argument, and that was not evidence.

“There are holes that cannot be plugged with argument,” he said.

He said Picerno was a criminal and the state was trying to make Oster one because they were friends.

“Jon Oster — shame on him for trying to appear to be less close to Mr. Picerno,” O’Brien said. “But that’s not proof Mr. Oster was criminally involved.”

He recounted how Picerno “lied to my client’s face and everyone’s face,” and how Picerno would misrepresent facts and inflate his clout to impress his targets. Picerno’s last flim-flam act in the Lincoln case was on the state police, O’Brien said. “They just decided they would investigate Oster. Anything that was consistent with that game plan was followed.”

“They trusted Robert Picerno,” O’Brien said. “You can’t trust Picerno.”

jhill@projo.com