Jurors in New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez’s federal corruption trial are getting a chance at a fresh start.
Their 16 hours of deliberations — which spilled into rare public view last week — are set to continue Monday with an alternate juror replacing one who was excused due to vacation plans.
Prosecutors accuse Menendez of engaging in a seven-year bribery scheme, accepting gifts from Dr. Salomon Melgen — a Florida ophthalmologist — in exchange for political favors. Both men deny all charges.
In an unusual tell-all to CNN and other news outlets last week, Evelyn Arroyo-Maultsby, formerly juror No. 8, revealed the divisions among jurors over the multi-count indictment Menendez is facing and suggested “it’s going to be a hung jury.”
“(Prosecutors) just didn’t show me enough, and I just wish I wasn’t going on vacation,” Arroyo-Maultsby said. “I would’ve been fighting in that jury room.”
Former federal prosecutor Lee Vartan said he’d be “sweating” right now if he were still at DOJ.
“All of this is unique and atypical,” Vartan said, but “as a prosecutor, you don’t want this sort of feedback from someone who heard all of the evidence. It’s about the worst thing that you could hear as a prosecutor.”
If the jury officially deadlocks in a mistrial or acquits Menendez of all charges this week, the senator won’t be the only one breathing a sigh of relief.
Menendez’s trial is being closely watched for any impact on the balance of power in the US Senate, where Republicans have a slim 52-48 majority and Democrats want to hold onto the seat. If he’s cleared of all wrongdoing, or at the very least, able to keep sentencing at bay until after January 16, 2018 — when GOP Gov. Chris Christie leaves office — Republicans would lose any leverage to push for his ouster.
A mistrial wouldn’t necessarily mean Menendez will be off the hook for good, however.
Should Judge William Walls formally declare a mistrial, former federal prosecutors predict that the Justice Department would ultimately refile the charges.
“If you believed in the case enough to bring it in the first place, typically you bring it again,” said Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University, who has followed the trial closely.
Though some say prosecutors might streamline the presentation a second time around.
“The evidence at trial should have been presented in more surgical and direct manner,” said Michael Weinstein, a former trial attorney at DOJ and now at Cole Schotz law firm in New Jersey. “The goal of doing so should have been to clearly and sufficiently tie together the hundreds of pieces of evidence into a more cohesive story. It would exceptionally unusual for them to walk away from this type of public corruption case.”