Disgraced ex-Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and two co-defendants were convicted on bribery and corruption charges last year but later demanded a new trial after it was belatedly discovered that some improperly redacted materials had been provided to jurors during deliberations.

The federal judge who presided over the case just rejected the request from Menendez for a new trial and for the prior convictions to be tossed out, the Associated Press reported.

The judge determined that is was "extraordinarily unlikely" that jurors even knew about the improperly redacted materials on a special laptop that featured all of the evidence from the trial, and even if they did, the information was of little consequence and insufficient to prejudice the jury or overturn the convictions that were based on ample other evidence.

Improperly redacted materials included on jury laptop

In July 2024, as jurors prepared to deliberate following a nine-week trial, federal prosecutors prepared a special laptop for the jury that included tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages of all of the exhibits and evidence submitted in the case against ex-Sen. Menendez and his two co-defendants that jurors could reference during deliberations.

Roughly four months later, it was discovered in November by prosecutors that buried deep within those thousands of exhibits were a handful of pages, less than 10 overall, that contained a few bits of information that were supposed to have been redacted but had inadvertently not been.

That revelation prompted defense attorneys for Menendez and his co-defendants to insist that their rights had been violated and that a new trial was necessary, but U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein thought otherwise.

Judge says "No" to new trial request

In a 14-page order on Wednesday, Judge Stein wrote, "Because the defendants have waived any objection to the improperly redacted contents of the laptop and its submission to the jury and because the defendants were not prejudiced by the improperly redacted material, defendants’ supplemental motions for a new trial are denied."

The judge detailed at length the preparation of the jury laptop and the inadvertent mistake of prosecutors to include some improperly redacted materials, which defense attorneys did not catch during their review of the laptop prior to jury deliberations but only now have cried foul about after prosecutors brought it to their attention.

"It is extraordinarily unlikely that the jury was even aware of the minuscule amount of extra-record material on the laptop. The extra-record material was a few phrases buried in thousands of exhibits and many thousands of pages of evidence," Stein wrote. "All defense counsel as well as the government attorneys -- acutely attuned to the evidence in this case -- failed to notice the improper redactions during their preparation and review of the jury laptop, and for a full four months thereafter. It was the government that disclosed the error to defense counsel, which then conducted a document-by-document examination of the exhibits provided to the jury."

"Even in the infinitesimal chance that the jury happened upon this evidence, there is similarly a miniscule likelihood that the jury would have understood it, much less attribute the significance to these exhibits that the defendants now do," he continued. "Moreover, even when the jury is exposed to extra-record information that is 'critical to the government’s case,' that exposure is not prejudicial 'if it concerns a matter as to which
there is abundant properly admitted evidence.' . And here, as set forth below, there was indeed 'abundant properly admitted evidence' on the points at issue here."

In the end, the judge concluded that a new trial wasn't necessary and wrote that "while all three teams of defense counsel reviewed the jury laptop, they failed to object to the submission of the laptop to the jury or seek additional time in which to review the laptop’s contents. In addition, it is extraordinarily unlikely that the jury ever became aware of the 'molecules of extra-record matter,' ... on the jury laptop when no one had referenced that material during the trial. The defendants were not prejudiced such that a new trial is required."

Menendez responds to ruling

Unsurprisingly, ex-Sen. Menendez disagreed with Judge Stein's ruling and told The Hill in a statement, "To think that prosecutors can put unconstitutional and inadmissible evidence in front of the jury, assure the defense they only provided the jury with admitted exhibits, and escape any consequences, is outrageous."

"This is precisely the sort of misconduct by prosecutors that has caused so many to question the motives and judgments of overzealous prosecutors who act above the law and believe they are unanswerable to anyone," the corrupt and convicted former Democratic senator from New Jersey added.

With the request for a new trial now quashed, Fox News reported that Menendez and his co-defendants will face sentencing at a hearing next week, where the disgraced politician faces a recommendation from prosecutors to spend 15 years behind bars for his crimes.