(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.
AI Is Reshaping Legal Practice—But Tools Aren’t The Real Differentiator.
Explore the mindset, cultural shifts, and training strategies that define the AI‑savvy lawyer, revealing why human judgment, standardized competence, and integrated learning—not technology alone—will shape the future of the profession.
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:
Learning After Law School
Once you’ve got your law degree, how do you keep your professional skills up to date? Share your perspective in this brief survey, and you may be eligible to win a $250 gift card.
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).