(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Kelly Craft)
There’s a lot going on in politics right now, so you’ll be forgiven if you haven’t been following the details of the corruption case against Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. For the first time in almost forty years a sitting U.S. senator is being tried on federal bribery charges — it’s alleged he took $1 million in personal gifts and campaign cash in exchange for political favors.
The senator maintains the allegations are similar to those leveled against Bob McDonnell and Sheldon Silver, whose convictions were both overturned, and are without merit. But the legal process being what it is, the trial is still going forward.
A Career in Legal Services: Practising Law Institute Honors Toby J. Rothschild
PLI honors Toby J. Rothschild with its inaugural Victor J. Rubino Award for Excellence in Pro Bono Training, recognizing his dedication and impact.
In a pretrial motion, defendant’s counsel requested a break from the trial when “critical” senate votes were occurring. District Judge for the District of New Jersey, William H. Walls, denied that request Friday, saying:
The Court suspects that the trial strategy behind this motion, if granted, would be to impress the jurors with the public importance of the defendant Senator and his duties. No other plausible reason comes to mind.
Yeah, it’s not like any major legislation or critical nomination has been decided by a one vote margin recently….
Menendez’s attorney, Raymond Brown, did not take kindly to Judge Walls’s opinion. In fact, he thought it was prejudicial:
The Next Chapter In Legal Tech Innovation: Introducing Protégé™
Meet LexisNexis Protégé™, the new AI assistant that leverages personalization choices controlled by the user or their organization to optimize the individual’s AI experience.
Quite frankly, your honor, that language is extremely prejudicial to the defense and it comes from the court. I think the court has disparaged the defense.
An argument ensued, with both the judge and the defense talking over one another. As Politico reports, that’s when Judge Walls used the power behind the bench to reach out a slap back:
“Shut up for a moment if you don’t mind,” Walls said. “I said what I said” to “underscore what I considered the lack of merits in this motion,” Walls added.
Walls said he “didn’t disparage you.”
“Now I feel quasi-insulted. You tell me where I have ever speculated to affect the interest of a defendant before a jury,” Walls said. “I want you to tell me where I have done something that reasonable jurors and lawyers would consider speculative and proactive.”
Yeah, the motion to strike the disputed language from the opinion was denied.
Kathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).