Key facts
- A federal appeals court heard arguments regarding former Senator Bob Menendez's conviction.
- Menendez was found guilty in 2024 on 16 counts, including bribery and obstruction of justice.
- The conviction carries an 11-year sentence.
- Judges questioned whether Menendez's actions met the legal standard for "official acts."
- The defense argued that Menendez did not pressure officials he met with.
A federal appeals court on Thursday appeared skeptical of the bribery conviction of former Senator Bob Menendez, questioning whether his actions met the legal threshold for "official acts." Menendez was found guilty in 2024 by a jury on 16 counts, including bribery, acting as a foreign agent for Egypt, obstruction of justice, extortion, and conspiring to commit those crimes. He is currently serving an 11-year sentence.
The panel, which included Judges Dennis Jacobs, Barrington Parker, and Beth Robinson, focused on the definition of "official act" as established by a Supreme Court ruling that overturned former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's conviction. This ruling stated that actions like setting up meetings or making calls, standing alone, do not qualify as official acts.
Menendez's attorney, Francisco, argued that meetings and calls Menendez had with then-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and Ted McKinney, a former USDA official, did not rise to the level of official acts under the standards set by the McDonnell and Sheldon Silver cases. Francisco contended that there was no evidence Menendez pressured Grewal or McKinney.
However, Judge Parker challenged this assertion, suggesting that Menendez's statements about the importance of certain matters to him would have been understood by those seeking important positions. Francisco also noted that the court refused a request for a jury instruction on the meaning of "pressure," stating that the distinction between unattractive conduct and criminal conduct was critical and blurred in this case.