A state House panel is poised to make a judgment about whether Rep. Thomas Wright violated ethics rules.

The panel finished hearing evidence Thursday from two special prosecutors who say that Wright, a Wilmington Democrat, mishandled almost $350,000 from his campaign, a charity and three corporations, David Ingram reports.

Wright's attorneys declined to present evidence, after previously suggesting that doing so would put Wright at a disadvantage is a possible criminal trial.

In his closing argument, Senior Deputy Attorney General William Hart argued that Wright had committed fraud and violated ethical rules that state legislators are bound to uphold.

"This is a solemn and sad occasion. I don't believe there’s anyone who wants to be here today, doing what we're doing," Hart said. "None of us would like to believe that a member of the House had done the things that are set forth in these charges."

Irving Joyner, an attorney for Wright, said that the evidence presented is "murky, confusing and disconnected." He criticized the process as biased because the panel that will judge whether he violated ethics rules is the same panel that brought charges against him.

"So is this fair and impartial?" Joyner asked. "Not in America. Not in North Carolina. Maybe in some foreign land, it would be. But not here."

The six-member, bipartisan panel could vote this afternoon on whether Wright violated ethics rules. If it votes that he did, it would then consider recommending a punishment to the full House.

State Rep. Thomas Wright told two agents with the State Bureau of Investigation that he pocketed $8,900 intended for a charitable foundation he was starting, according to testimony Wednesday.

SBI Special Agent-in-Charge Johnnie Umphlet testified before a House panel about two interviews that he and another agent conducted with Wright in September and October, David Ingram reports.

During those interviews, they asked Wright what he did with three corporate checks made out to the Community's Health Foundation.

"He advised that he deposited those checks into his personal bank account," Umphlet testified, "as a payment for his services in trying to get the foundation started, that he had done a lot of work and put
in a lot of hours trying to get the foundation started, and had put in a lot of sweat equity."

Wright told the agents he did not have a log of his work, but that he had made phone calls, traveled and incurred other expenses, Umphlet said. 

One of Wright's attorneys, Irving Joyner, questioned the authenticity of the checks and of the letters bearing Wright's name that requested the donations. He also asked Umphlet about his process for taking and transcribing notes.

Joyner attempted to ask Umphlet about a "$50,000 slush fund" that he said Wright might have had access to. Senior Deputy Attorney General William Hart, a lawyer for the House panel, objected to the question, and Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat and the panel's chairman, ruled that the question was not relevant.