On April 21st, Nadine Menendez, the wife of former senator Bob Menendez, was convicted of 15 counts of bribery, conspiracy and obstruction of justice following a three week trial. There is an old saying among trial lawyers that there are three trials, the one for which you prepare, the one you put on and the one that you would have put on had you known at the beginning of the trial what you learned by the end. In the case of Nadine Menendez, the trial was essentially a rehashing of her husband’s trial. Bob Menendez was convicted in July 2024 of 16 counts of bribery, extortion, honest services fraud, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. During the trial much was learned by both the prosecutors and defense lawyers that played a part in the trial of Nadine Menendez.
Bob Menendez and Nadine Menendez were both indicted in 2023 with the expectation of trying the intertwined cases together, but Nadine Menendez’s trial was postponed due to her treatment for breast cancer. The essence of the charges against both were that they had received hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of bribes including cash, gold bars and a Mercedes-Benz automobile in return for his political influence.
In the trial of Bob Menendez the jury found that he had pressured the USDA not to contest a meat monopoly granted by Egypt to Wael Hana, promised to intervene in criminal prosecutions in New Jersey and helped Egypt receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the United States. A longtime friend of Nadine Menendez, Hana, the evidence showed, paid bribes to Bob and Nadine Menendez.
Jose Uribe whose business associates were under investigation for fraud testified in both trials that he gave Nadine Menendez a $60,000 Mercedes-Benz convertible in return for the senator’s efforts to interfere with those investigations. Uribe himself pleaded guilty to bribery charges and cooperated with prosecutors.
At the start of Bob Menendez’s trial, his lawyer in opening statements put the blame on Nadine Menendez, telling the jury that she kept her husband in the dark about “what she was asking others to give her.” As for the gold and some of the cash that prosecutors said were the bribes, Bob Menendez’s lawyer told the jury that those things were kept in a locked closet of his wife where she stored her clothes and that Bob Menendez had no knowledge of their existence. The jury was unconvinced.
During her trial prosecutors presented testimony and evidence indicating that Nadine Menendez was an integral and enthusiastic part of the bribes including damning text messages and testimony of a clandestine meeting with Jose Uribe in a parking lot for the sole purpose of her receiving a $15,000 cash bribe.
As in the trial of Bob Menendez, Barry Coburn, Nadine Menendez’s lawyer argued that there was no link to the gold cash or car to any specific official act of Bob Menendez. While the image of cash, gold and a Mercedes-Benz would appear to be clear evidence of bribery and appear quite unethical, the law requires more for a bribery conviction. In the major Supreme Court unanimous decision of McDonnell v. United States, the court held that arranging a meeting, contacting another official, or hosting an event on its own is not sufficient to rise to the level of an “official act” for the purpose of federal bribery statutes. That case involved substantial gifts made to Robert McDonnell, the then governor of Virginia. The decision written by Chief Justice Robert concluded, “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term “official act” leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court.”
However, the facts of the McDonnell case differ significantly from the facts of the cases against Bob and Nadine Menendez in that all that Robert McDonnell did was arrange a meeting from a donor with a governmental official that did not result in the donor getting the sought after government contract while the acts of Bob Menendez clearly indicate improper influence by Menendez. It is unlikely that this argument will be the grounds for a successful appeal.
Bob Menendez is slated to start his 11 year prison sentence in June the same month in which his wife will return to court for sentencing.
Read the full article here