You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Senator Menendez Juror Asks Trial Judge: ‘What Is a Senator?'
2017-11-08
[Bloomberg] On their first full day of jury deliberations at the bribery trial of Senator Robert Menendez, a juror asked the judge a basic question: What is a senator?

U.S. District Judge William Walls declined to answer the question, and he refused that juror’s request for a transcript of Monday’s closing argument by Menendez’s attorney, Abbe Lowell. The panel had returned to the Newark, New Jersey, federal courthouse Tuesday after spending about 75 minutes deliberating the day before. Walls told jurors that they should rely on their individual and collective memories to determine how to define a senator.

The juror’s question, odd as it may have seemed, may have related to whether Melgen could have been considered a Menendez constituent. Defense attorneys said during the trial that Menendez regarded it as part of his Senate work to look after the interests of people beyond his home state. In his closing argument, Lowell reiterated that Menendez never introduced legislation that benefited Melgen.

The New Jersey Democrat is accused of taking bribes from Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen in the form of private jet travel, a Paris vacation and campaign contributions in exchange for pushing the doctor’s business interests at the highest levels of the U.S. government. Defense lawyers say they were just favors among good friends.


Posted by:Anomalous Sources

#13  errr: 3 weeks. Why anyone does this voluntarily (even with the $) is beyond me
Posted by: Frank G   2017-11-08 20:24  

#12  having just spent 2 weeks in a Superior Court, I can attest: The Judge does not have to answer all questions, he can refer them to the evidence which addressed that issue. Not necessarily a mistrial argument, but I'm sure the defense attorneys might attempt it
Posted by: Frank G   2017-11-08 20:23  

#11  @#10 - yup!
Posted by: Anomalous Sources   2017-11-08 19:21  

#10  I think the commenters are missing it: Juror asks judge question that judge decides not to answer. Mistrial. Motivations of juror and judge irrelevant but for outcome.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2017-11-08 15:12  

#9  He is a Swamp Monster and the other Swamp Monsters, regardless of their supposed party, fight for their own. interest - how many of them would be in the same situation if investigated thoroughly?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-11-08 08:43  

#8  Hopefully something that Robert Menedez will very soon no longer be ?

Sorry Beso. The Dems have made it clear that they will fight to retain Menendez in the Senate. He is a Swamp Monster and the other Swamp Monsters, regardless of their supposed party, fight for their own.
Posted by: AlanC   2017-11-08 08:41  

#7  Snark of the day?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-11-08 07:48  

#6  A citizen legislator (usually a lawyer) who enters office a thousandaire and leaves a multimilllionaire, inexplicably
Posted by: Frank G   2017-11-08 07:09  

#5  'What Is a Senator'

Hopefully something that Robert Menedez will very soon no longer be ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-11-08 06:51  

#4  I didn't presume idiocy on the juror's part; I offered up a few alternative behaviour patterns instead.
Posted by: Raj   2017-11-08 02:34  

#3  "The juror’s question, odd as it may have seemed, may have related to whether Melgen could have been considered a Menendez constituent."

It's right there, the juror isn't an idiot, the journalist just tried to make him look that way. Because that's what journalists do.
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309   2017-11-08 02:17  

#2  I'd like to know the type of person this question came from; he could be a ballbuster / pain in the ass sort. Then again, it's very unlikely blithering idiots would have made it to the jury in the first place, especially this jury.
Posted by: Raj   2017-11-08 02:02  

#1  So, it was an entirely reasonable question, which the journalist tried to make the juror look like an idiot. This is why nobody trusts you, media.
Posted by: Herb McCoy7309   2017-11-08 00:38  

00:00