NEW YORK — Federal prosecutors on Tuesday urged a judge to deny U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez's request to delay his bribery trial scheduled for next spring by two months, until July.
Prosecutors argued against the delay a week after attorneys offered multiple reasons why they say a trial against the Democrat and co-defendants, including his wife, should be postponed.
The senator gave up his position as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after his arrest in September.
Prosecutors said the original trial date of May 6 was appropriate and did not object when it was announced, even though the circumstances were the same.
“The schedule was and remains reasonable and consistent with the overriding public interest in a speedy trial,” prosecutors wrote.
Defense lawyers cited more than 6.7 million documents to review, an “unprecedented” indictment of foreign agents and complex legal questions to be answered as they asked for a postponement of a trial now scheduled for May 6. They said a two-month delay would still last. bring defendants to justice within ten months of their arrest.
Four defendants, including Menendez, have pleaded not guilty to a bribery charge alleging that Menendez and his wife accepted bribes in the form of cash, gold bars and a luxury car from three New Jersey businessmen who sought the help and influence of the senator wanted on foreign affairs.
The senator, his wife and a third defendant have also pleaded not guilty to charges that they conspired to use the senator as an agent of the Egyptian government, even though he was prohibited from doing so as a member of Congress.
In asking for a delay, defense attorneys wrote: “Given the complexity of this case and the seriousness of the charges involved, the speed at which this case is proceeding is extraordinary.”
They said they plan to ask Judge Sidney H. Stein in Manhattan to dismiss the suit on multiple grounds, including constitutional and sufficiency reasons and because New York federal court is the wrong venue.
Prosecutors said in their letter to the judge that the extensive amount of evidence turned over to the defense would not delay the trial because it was consistent with what the government had promised at the first conference in October.
“In short, if there were a right to have several months to process discovery before filing motions, as defendants seem to suggest, the practice in this district would be very different. The Court's current timeline is accelerated, but reasonable,” the prosecutors said.