Bob Mcdonald, Official, Menendez discussed on Bloomberg Law


Conviction and in this case with the judge has focusing on was the fact that the government was crying the political contributions to the official lacks simply by showing jurors that they were both for foreign closely in time in other words the official lacks more performed on one day the political contributions in well received several days thereafter on the judge said if that was simply not enough for your reasonable juror to conclude that there was that quid pro quo arrangement that is necessary to sustain a conviction the judge dismissed those counts before they went to the jury reward the motion made at the beginning of a trial to dismiss count but in this case the judge who wanted to hear the evidence wanted to allow the government to proceed with their case and you what all of the evidence flaws before he made his final decision that that was not enough to sustain a conviction judge walls bad out of the case so they what has been facing another judge who might have had a different take on the evidence my dad has changed the prosecution's chances will judge wall from the original trial did recuse himself from the second trial and it took a clear at this point we judge would have heard the case but regardless of who the new judge is going to be there really wasn't much left there for the government to hang onto and how they real to cope of getting a conviction on any of the council remained the menendez case is an example of how difficult it's become to win public corruption cases after the supreme court's mcdonald's decision tell us about that decision lou mcdonald gay 2015 capri in court decision involving bob mcdonald a former republican governor of virginia i medicaid and faithfully reined in prosecutors in all these political corruption cases by forcing prosecutors.

Coming up next