Carl, Bob Mcdonald, Official discussed on


Conviction and in this case with the judge was focusing on was the fact that the government was tying the political contributions to the official lacks simply by showing jurors that they were both for foreign closely in time in other words the youth issa lacks more performed on one day the political contributions and we'll received several days thereafter on the judge said that that was simply not enough for you 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 were there what a motion made at the beginning of the 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 see what all of the evidence flaws before he made his final decision that that was not enough to sustain a conviction judge walls bad the case so they would have been facing another judge who might have had a different take on the evidence might that has changed the prosecution's chances will judge wall who you original carl did recused himself from the second trial and it's unclear at this point we can judge would have heard the case but regardless of who the new judge was going to be there really wasn't much left there for the government to hang onto and have a real to cope of getting a conviction on any of accounts of remained the menendez case is an example of how difficult it's become to win public corruption cases africa supreme court's mcdonald decision tell us about that decision lou mcdonald came twig a twenty the 'prein quarter figure involving bob mcdonald the former republican governor of after getting a a.

Coming up next