After the government rested, one of Mr. Boyland’s lawyers asked the judge, Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court, to acquit their client on grounds that the government had failed to prove the necessary quid pro quo.
“We believe that although they have established that money was paid and that official acts occurred,” the lawyer, Michael K. Bachrach, said, “we do not believe the evidence supports one was for the other.”
Judge Rakoff denied the motion, saying there was “more than ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer” that such an agreement had existed between Mr. Rosen and Mr. Boyland.
He cited, for example, Mr. Boyland’s “seeming lack of any genuine consulting activity” while he was being paid as a consultant. The jury could infer, he added, that it “was because it was a sham agreement.”
Judge Rakoff noted that he was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and said he was not making any findings on whether Mr. Boyland was actually guilty.
Mr. Boyland’s lawyers presented a brief defense case, including two witnesses and exhibits to support their contention that Mr. Boyland’s deal had not been a secret, and that he had sought funding on behalf of many nonprofit organizations.
Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.