Chalet must decide: Make a deal or go to trial

BLOOMFIELD, NJ — In a court hearing on Monday, Dec. 19, Newark Superior Court Judge Martin Cronin gave indicted 1st Ward Councilman Elias Chalet until Jan. 20 to make a choice: accept a trial date, or seek a plea bargain for allegedly accepting a bribe to use his political influence.

Chalet is charged with official misconduct and bribery for allegedly taking $15,000 and promising to exert his influence with the Bloomfield Township Council for the purchase of property owned by a private individual. The property owner allegedly gave Chalet the money during two meetings, recording the transactions for police.

When the hearing began, Peter Till, Chalet’s attorney, asked Cronin to wait until an interlocutory appeal he’d filed with the Appellate Division has been answered.
An interlocutory appeal asks a panel of judges to decide a question of law before a case is decided by a jury. Cronin refused the request for a postponement, saying that a trial could begin while the appeal went forward. Till filed this appeal Nov. 23, because Chalet never voted to purchase the property, and therefore should not be charged with official misconduct, but fraud.

During a court hearing in late September, Till told the judge that since Chalet had never voted on the question of the property, he had never acted, and official misconduct, as defined by the law, is an act. Cronin disagreed, saying there was enough recorded evidence that Chalet had acted on his promise and he would not reduce the charge. Till responded by filing the interlocutory appeal.

Till said Dec. 19 that irreparable harm would be done to Chalet if he were to go to trial and the Appellate Division agreed afterward that he had not in fact committed official misconduct.

“It should not go to trial but decided now,” Till said. “The appellate decision may request trial instructions that technically no crime may have been committed.”
However, the judge said an appeal is a slow process and he knew the Appellate Division had a lot of work already. He said irreparable harm would not come to Chalet if a trial proceeded before their decision is known.

“Mr. Chalet is in no different shoes than anyone,” Cronin said. “His rights are preserved.”

Cronin also said that the public and the prosecution has a right to a speedy trial. Delay, he said, may prevent the prosecution from preserving evidence, which may include what people remember.

The Dec. 19 hearing included a 10-minute sidebar during which time Cronin, Till and Deputy Attorney General Brian Falk conferred privately near the judge’s bench. During this time, Chalet, who did not remove his dark blue overcoat during the 30-minute hearing, received permission to leave the courtroom. He was retrieved by Till in time to hear the Jan. 20 scheduling agreement.

Falk told the judge the current plea agreement offered to Chalet is seven years in state prison and three years without parole. Chalet would also be required to pay the state $15,000, the amount he had allegedly received from the property owner. The state Attorney General’s Office has never publicly said whether any of the money allegedly given to Chalet was recovered. Till told the judge that the original plea agreement was for five years in prison with two years of parole ineligibility, a plea Chalet declined.