new york
CNN
—
The slow-moving corruption trial of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez is likely to reach a new, intense phase this week as the prosecution and defense test the limits of the court, the law and the federal judge presiding over the trial.
U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein has a firmer grip on cases than his soft-spoken demeanor would suggest, and he increasingly has to decide what evidence the prosecution can present or argue. The defense sometimes tests Stein’s patience with witness questioning and tactical objections.
Nearly two weeks after a jury was selected and seated in Manhattan federal court, the question of whether Menendez and his two co-defendants are guilty or innocent appears to depend on how Stein interprets the protections Menendez enjoys as a sitting U.S. senator. Prosecutors have promised to present clear evidence that the New Jersey Democrat accepted bribes and, as the indictment states, acted as an agent of the Egyptian government. Menendez and his co-defendants have pleaded not guilty.
But as prosecutors continue to lay the groundwork for their complex and far-reaching case, defense lawyers, particularly those representing Menendez, are carefully trying to exclude anecdotes, documents and other details that are considered inadmissible in a case involving alleged public corruption.
Here are four questions that are expected to dominate the courts and congressional elections across the Hudson River over the next week.
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are fighting a legal battle on two fronts.
On the one hand, the government is hurt by the “speech or debate” clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to protect lawmakers from having their congressional activities used against them in court.
Meanwhile, prosecutors are also contending with more recent precedent, including the 2016 Supreme Court decision in McDonnell v. United States, which raised the bar for prosecutors trying to prove corruption charges against elected political leaders.
This effectively means that some of the most incriminating evidence against Menendez cannot be presented or discussed, at least not in person, before a jury.
There were no surprises here for either side in the case: Menendez’s defense has clearly used both pieces of evidence, while the prosecution has extensively argued in its arguments over the evidence that its case is strong enough to be invincible against these challenges.
Menendez is particularly familiar with some of these dynamics, arguing in 2017 that his previous corruption trial should be tossed out because of the protections he gained through the speech and discussion clause. The Supreme Court rejected that motion, but the defense in this case (which ended in a mistrial) is aggressively citing the precedent to stifle the prosecution.
Given these increasingly stringent constraints, whether the government can present a clear and compelling case to jurors will determine Menendez’s legal fate.
Will Menendez take the stand?
It’s certainly unlikely, but not impossible.
There is no indication yet that Menendez or his legal team are planning the risky, high-reward move, which former President Donald Trump, on trial in Manhattan Criminal Court, rejected before his closing arguments.
But that possibility is not as remote as many observers suspect, leaving open the possibility of new developments in this already sensational case.
That possibility has less to do with how the case plays out in court and more to do with the makeup of the jury — specifically, the fact that the majority of jurors are college-educated, with more than half holding graduate or master’s degrees — and their occupations reflect that, too, including a banker, a therapist and an artist-turned-business owner.
Many prosecutors believe that as a rule of thumb, the more formally educated and professionally experienced a juror is, the more likely they are to hear directly from a defendant, especially if that defendant comes to court with a high level of public profile or political power.
It’s unclear whether this group of prosecutors will take that view, or, of course, whether the jury evaluated Menendez’s oath.
The defense began the trial by blaming the senator’s wife, Nadine Menendez, who is due to face a separate, related trial this summer. She has also pleaded not guilty.
The senator’s lawyers said Nadine Menendez used her husband’s power and wealth to enrich the couple while keeping secrets from him, sometimes by storing gold bars in a bedroom closet.
“She hid nothing from him,” defense attorney Avi Weitzman told the jury. “She didn’t let him know anything.”
Prosecutors made a different case in their opening statement, with Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz saying the senator used “his wife” as a go-between for co-defendants and foreign agents.
“She contacted the bribe payers, passed the messages to Mr. Menendez, and collected a portion of the bribe money,” Pomerantz said, “all in exchange for Mr. Menendez’s promise to use his power as a senator.”
The jury’s answer to that question could determine the outcome of the case: Was Nadine Menendez just a bit player who helped her husband commit crimes to benefit both of them, as the prosecution alleges, or was she more of a mastermind, as the defense alleges?
Just weeks before a jury in Lower Manhattan returns its verdict against Menendez, voters in northern New Jersey’s 8th Congressional District will have a say in the politics of his family.
Menendez himself is not running for reelection in the June 4 Democratic primary, but his son, freshman Councilman Rob Menendez Jr., is running and faces a stiff challenge from Hoboken Mayor Ravi Barra.
Menendez Jr. was first elected to the seat in 2022 to replace Democrat Albio Siles, who filled the seat when Bob Menendez was appointed to the Senate in 2006.
While Barra has not publicly accused his opponents of being corrupt or that they should be held accountable for his father’s alleged crimes, some outside groups that support him have made those claims.
“What parents say is what parents say, so it’s no surprise that Rob Menendez defends his father’s corruption,” says a TV ad from America’s Promise, a super PAC that supports Barra. “New Jersey has enough rotten apples. Rob Menendez is rotten to the core.”
Menendez Jr. directly addressed that offensive philosophy in his recent spot.
“My opponent wants to fight my father because he’s afraid to fight me, and that’s on him,” Menendez Jr. tells the camera. “I’m focused on fighting for you.”
Recent backlash against the Garden State Democratic Party’s uniquely powerful political machine also played a bigger role in the race than perhaps the outcome of the trial. But for Menendez, a senator and father, the will of voters in the 8th District primary could have a major impact on his political future — and legacy.
