The decide presiding over Sen. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezGraham, Booker to testify as character witnesses for Menendez Poll: Majority do not badume Menendez must be reelected Overnight Health Care: House pbades 20-week abortion ban | GOP offers floor over ObamaCare repair | Price exit units off hypothesis over alternative MORE‘s (D-N.J.) corruption trial reportedly denied a juror’s request on Tuesday to learn again a part of the protection’s closing argument coping with the definition of a “senator.”
According to The Associated Press, U.S. District Judge William Walls rejected the juror’s request, arguing that solely testimony may very well be learn again to the jury — not closing arguments.
The request got here in the course of the first full day of jury deliberations in Menendez’s bribery and corruption trial, after closing arguments concluded on Monday. Jurors haven’t but reached a verdict within the case.
Federal prosecutors allege that Menendez took lavish holidays, political donations and presents from Salomon Melgen, a rich Florida eye physician, in alternate for utilizing his public workplace to advocate on behalf of Melgen’s private and enterprise pursuits. Melgen is a co-defendant within the trial.
Lawyers for Menendez and Melgan argue that the advantages and presents weren’t a part of a quid professional quo, however had been fairly given in good religion as a part of a decades-long friendship.
Part of the protection’s arguments hinged on who may very well be thought of a constituent of Menendez. Melgen was not a New Jersey resident, however the senator’s attorneys have argued that Menendez helped individuals primarily based on points, fairly than on the place they lived.
Also a key a part of the jury’s deliberations is whether or not Menendez took half in an “official act” on Melgen’s behalf. The Supreme Court narrowed the definition of an “official act” final yr in a choice overturning the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).
The Supreme Court dominated unanimously in that case that so-called “official acts” don’t embody merely establishing conferences or making telephone calls to different public officers.
Walls used language immediately from that ruling in his directions for jurors on find out how to apply the legislation to their resolution.