At close of ex-Philly Sheriff John Green's trial, vastly different portraits

Federal prosecutors on Wednesday portrayed John Green — Philadelphia's sheriff for two decades —  as a corrupt politician who sold his office to his "money man," steering lucrative and secret contracts to codefendant James Davis in return for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions, massive "loans" he never had to pay back, and even a bargain-priced house.

Defense lawyers for Green and Davis dismissed this as an unfair caricature. They described Green, 70, and Davis, 67, as close friends who worked tirelessly together to shake up an inept, underfunded, understaffed Sheriff's Office to rescue homeowners from predatory banks. With a handshake deal, Green saw to it that Davis' businesses were paid more than $35 million over a decade, essentially to run a program overseeing foreclosure sales for unpaid mortgages and taxes.

In his closing argument before the jury began deliberations, Peter Scuderi, Green's attorney, derided prosecutors for repeatedly urging the 12-member panel to use its common sense to connect the dots between the benefits bestowed on the sheriff and the contracts given to Davis. Scuderi told the jurors this advice was a dodge to obscure the government's lack of more powerful evidence, such as a tape catching Green admitting wrongdoing.

Lewis Small, one of Davis' lawyers, made the same point in directing fire at prosecutors. "They have no direct evidence of a bribe," Small said. "Everything here is circumstantial, and they draw the wrong inferences."

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Diviny and his two fellow prosecutors have relied on court precedent establishing that proof of a "stream of benefits" can be enough for conviction, even if investigators can't tie a particular gift to a particular act of a corrupt official. And Diviny told the jury Wednesday that Green had received no mere stream, but "a torrent of benefits."

During the five-week, document-filled bribery-and-corruption trial, prosecutors detailed case after case in which Davis had helped Green financially, both personally and when he ran as a Democrat in numerous citywide campaigns. Bluntly calling the generosity "bribes and kickbacks," Diviny cited as examples:

For the jurors, Diviny cited documents and testimony to unravel the often-convoluted path of the money to Green. He said the circuitous path revealed the true intent of Green and Davis.

"It's the strongest evidence that the defendants knew what they were doing was wrong — that's why you conceal things," the prosecutor said.

In one instance, when a Green campaign was nearly broke on the eve of a primary, prosecutors said, Davis arranged for a relative to lend Green $50,000 on the premise that it was a construction loan. In fact, the money was put into the campaign fund. It was never disclosed on a campaign-finance report. Green has not repaid the relative.

But Small argued that the government had overreached in finding a sinister motivation for Davis'  help for Green. Small noted that prosecutors had even raised questions about a $10,000 loan Davis gave Green in 2011 — months after Green had quit office midterm and after Davis' contracts had been suddenly cut off.

That loan, Small said, "is just where a friend helps a friend."