ShareThis Page

Menendez trial: Mistrial looms as jury deliberations resume

| Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017, 6:36 p.m.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., departs federal court, Nov. 14, 2017 in Newark, N.J. The jury continues to deliberate in his corruption trial.
Getty Images
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., departs federal court, Nov. 14, 2017 in Newark, N.J. The jury continues to deliberate in his corruption trial.

NEWARK, N.J. — Jurors reached no verdict after another full day spent considering the corruption charges against U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez and his co-defendant Tuesday, one day after they informed the judge overseeing the case they were deadlocked on all 18 counts.

Should the jury not be able to reach a unanimous verdict in the days ahead, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls could be compelled to declare a mistrial.

When jurors returned to the courtroom Tuesday morning after having been sent home early Monday afternoon, Walls read them instructions in which he encouraged them to keep trying to reach a consensus.

“Do not hesitate to re-examine your own views, and change your opinion, if convinced it is erroneous,” he said. “But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of reaching a verdict.”

Walls also diverged from those instructions, called a model charge, to remind jurors that “this is not reality TV” and to ask them somewhat cryptically to consider one question above all others: “Why?”

Menendez attorney Abbe Lowell objected to Walls' additions to the model charge, arguing that they undermined the “balance” such instructions strike as honed through hundreds of trials.

“Your great desire to quarrel with me has no merit,” Walls responded.

Menendez, the senior Democratic senator from New Jersey, and his co-defendant Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida eye doctor, stand accused of striking a corrupt bargain to swap official favors for gifts and political contributions.

Both men deny the charges. Menendez has said he will be “vindicated” at trial and run for re-election next year.

In total, Menendez faces six counts of bribery, three counts of honest services fraud, one count of conspiracy, one count of interstate travel to carry out bribery and one count of making false statements on his congressional financial disclosures to conceal the crimes. Melgen faces the same charges except the false statements accusation.

The fraud charges carry the most serious penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Deliberations in the 11-week trial began Nov. 6 and continued for more than 15 hours last week before a juror was excused to take a long-planned vacation to the Bahamas.

Walls filled the vacancy on the 12-person panel with an alternate and instructed the jury Monday to begin deliberations “from scratch.”

About three hours later, jurors sent a note to the judge informing him they were deadlocked and asking for guidance on how to proceed.

Jurors deliberated for about five more hours Tuesday without sending a single question or note to the court.

During an exchange with Walls after jurors had left for the day, defense attorneys repeated a request they first made Monday for a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.

The request is significant not because it prevents Walls from letting the jury deliberate for a few more days, but because it means that in the event of a mistrial, the government can retry the case without the defense objecting to being tried twice for the same offense, otherwise known as double jeopardy.

Lead prosecutor Peter Koski responded that it is “premature” at this point to discuss “next steps.” He later asked Walls to consider instructing the jury about a so-called “partial verdict” in which jurors can reach a verdict on some, but not all, counts.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.