a parking space in an affluent neighborhood. When the agent of the Delancey Street building's new owner found Wright there, everyone passed the buck to Teitelman, who promised to have Wright moved out when the owner requested. Instead, Teitelman defended Wright in the eviction attempt, drafting the answer to the eviction complaint referred to in Count Ten. And there is no dispute that Teitelman acted as Wright's personal lawyer in other matters when Wright could no longer afford one. Teitelman himself sent many of the emails soliciting official acts from Wright, and he (Teitelman) was copied as a recipient on most others. A jury could infer that Teitelman conferred these benefits on Wright so that he would help the business of Teitelman's main client, Chawla.
Thus, drawing all possibleWright to make mechanical parking a priority in his office. On cross-examination, Kelly approved of Wright's other "official acts" as within the scope of his job. Kelly's legislative assistant also testified that while Chawla and his brother "called a lot," they were among many constituents who did so. The President of the Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, for example, testified that Wright went personally to visit with its members and worked with many City departments on their behalf. When Chawla's requests extended beyond "constituent services," as in his offer of liaison work, Wright declined. On this evidence, the jury could have acquitted Wright of honest services fraud under the bribery theory because he lacked the required intent to be influenced.
Second, it is not clear beyond doubt that the