Pro-Armenian ex-Senator Menendez appeals 11-year prison term in bribery case

Former US Senator Bob Menendez on September 25 urged a federal appeals court to overturn his bribery conviction and 11-year prison sentence, arguing that prosecutors violated constitutional protections for lawmakers during his trial, according to Courthouse News Service.

Menendez, 72, was convicted in July 2024 of accepting cash and gold bribes in exchange for using his political influence to interfere in state and federal criminal investigations involving three businessmen who were also charged in the scheme.

His appeal before the New York-based Second Circuit Court of Appeals centres on the Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which protects lawmakers from prosecution over official legislative acts.

“Prosecutors must attempt to prove them solely through evidence that the legislator entered a corrupt quid pro quo agreement for official action,” Menendez wrote in his appeal filing. “They must not put legislative activity itself on trial. That, however, is exactly what prosecutors here did for two of the schemes.”

Menendez’s lawyer Noel Francisco argued that prosecutors had to show that the former senator used the power of his office to coerce other officials, rather than simply relying on his influence as an elected lawmaker.

“The fact that Senator Menendez may be influential because of his office does not itself mean he used his office to exert pressure,” said Francisco, who served as President Donald Trump’s solicitor general during his first term. “Rather, Senator Menendez must have used his power to threaten, coerce, or similarly apply force to another public official to take an official act. In other words, you have to invoke the power of your office to coerce.”

During the hearing, U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington Parker asked where the line between “pressure” and “support” from an elected official should be drawn.

Menendez also argued that prosecutors improperly provided jurors with unredacted versions of evidence that had been ordered redacted during the trial.

The government urged the appeals court to reject Menendez’s constitutional challenge, saying his conviction was supported by extensive evidence and that the trial complied with the speech or debate clause.

“The defendants in this case were convicted based on overwhelming evidence in a trial that fully complied with the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, as both motions panels concluded, there is no ground for reversal of any of the defendant’s convictions,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni told the court.

Monteleoni cited the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, prompting Parker to question whether the government had more recent precedent.

“Do you have a better case than Marbury v. Madison? I mean, the government has changed dramatically over the ensuing 200 years,” Parker said.

The three-judge panel, which also included Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Beth Robinson, did not immediately rule on the appeal.

Menendez has previously raised similar arguments before the trial court without success. He resigned from the Senate in August 2024, a month after his conviction, having already stepped down as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after he was charged in 2023.

During the trial, Menendez’s defence argued that his wife, Nadine Menendez, had concealed her financial difficulties and requests for assistance from the businessmen involved in the case.

Menendez was previously indicted in 2015 over allegations that he used his political influence to help Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen in return for luxury trips, private-jet flights and campaign contributions. That case ended in a mistrial in 2017.

By Aghakazim Guliyev