In Corruption Retrial, Ex-Senate Leader Takes Stand in Own Defense

NEW YORK — Dean G. Skelos, once one of the most powerful players in New York state government, unexpectedly took the stand in his own defense Friday during the retrial of a federal corruption case that two years earlier had resulted in a five-year prison sentence.

Skelos, the former majority leader of the Senate Republicans, was convicted in 2015 of bribery, extortion and conspiracy; neither he nor his son, Adam B. Skelos, who was also found guilty, chose to testify at that trial. Their convictions were overturned last year, after a Supreme Court ruling narrowed the legal definition of corruption.

Prosecutors quickly vowed to retry the case, contending that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the definition of corruption being narrowed to formal and concrete government actions or decisions, not political courtesies like setting up a meeting.

The outcome of this new trial may now hinge upon two key differences from the first: the narrowed definition, and Skelos’ at times emotional testimony on Friday, in which he provided an intimate account of his upbringing and his relationship with Adam Skelos, who is also on trial. Adam Skelos is not expected to testify.

Dean Skelos is accused in U.S. District Court in Manhattan of abusing his powerful perch to pressure officials at various companies to give his son roughly $300,000 via consulting work, a no-show job and a direct payment of $20,000.

He testified Friday that he had been acting only as a concerned father requesting the assistance of longtime friends. He emphatically denied that he had ever taken official actions to benefit his son.

“I was with friends. I didn’t see any problem with it,” he said of a conversation he had with one executive he is accused of asking to send business to his son. “Quite frankly, I’ve asked a lot of people to help my son. If I had the opportunity to ask somebody to help Adam, I did it.”

When his lawyer, G. Robert Gage Jr., asked if he had ever intended to trade his office in exchange for that help, Skelos was explicit.

“Absolutely not. And that’s not the way I was brought up,” he said.

“Never,” he said when asked again later. And again: “Never would.”

Indeed, much of Skelos’ roughly 90 minutes of testimony centered around how he had been brought up and how he had brought up his son. Defense lawyers, speaking to the judge before the jury was brought in, made their aim clear: They said Skelos’ personal history, his son’s troubled past and the two men’s relationship were critical to helping the jury understand that Skelos had acted out of love, not criminal intent.

Prosecutors sought to bar the defense from going into detail about those struggles, calling such information a transparent play for jurors’ sympathy. But the judge, Kimba M. Wood, said it was relevant to understanding the thought process of Skelos, who will return to the stand Monday.

On the stand, Skelos appeared to slip quickly back into the role of the charismatic politician. In rambling answers, often speaking directly to jurors, he recalled his mother’s death at a young age; reminisced on working in his grandfather’s bakery; and joked about losing 30 pounds on the campaign trail from knocking on constituents’ doors. He described giving speeches as a young father while holding his son in his arms, and calling him two or three times a day when he was away in Albany.

He said his son had struggled with substance abuse, anger management and learning issues.

“Very hard for me to talk about this,” Skelos said at one point, noting that his son “could get a bit abrasive, a bit difficult. Sometimes it could be a little ugly.”

He was committed to helping him through those times, he said: “There’s nothing more important than being a parent and doing that for your child.”

Part of Skelos’ testimony also seemed devoted to disproving prosecutors’ theory that he had single-handedly controlled the legislative agenda in Albany. Prosecutors have argued that the quid pro quo of Skelos’ corruption stemmed from his threats to kill legislation that the company officials needed for their businesses, if they did not bend to his and his son’s wills.

“Sometimes I did have to make a major decision,” Skelos said of his philosophy as majority leader. “But I enjoyed having the input of my conference members.”

He suggested that his aides had dictated most of the legislation he pushed through. “We all think we’re the brightest lights in the world, but we’re not,” he said of state legislators. “The staff knows the intricacies of the bills.”

A defendant testifying on his own behalf is often seen as risky, and lawyers usually try to dissuade their clients from doing so, especially to shield them from often-grueling cross-examination by prosecutors, said Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School. (Prosecutors said they expect to cross-examine Skelos on Monday.)

Roiphe said the decision to put Skelos on the stand was a “little bit of a Hail Mary,” suggesting that his lawyers may be hoping that Skelos could charm the jury into an acquittal.

“It seems to me, strategically, it’s a bit of acknowledgment that they’re having trouble,” she said of the defense lawyers. “It may be their last hope and last shot — that somehow they can prep him to be appealing to the jury, and if they hear his side, maybe they’ll believe him.”