Washington — Former New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez asked a federal court in New York on Wednesday to throw out his conviction in a sprawling bribery scheme and grant him a new trial after prosecutors disclosed that the jury was inadvertently provided information during deliberations that it should not have been given.

The request from Menendez’s lawyers came in response to a letter prosecutors sent to the court on Nov. 13 revealing they had unintentionally loaded onto a laptop given to the jury during deliberations the incorrect versions of nine exhibits. Prosecutors said neither they nor Menendez’s lawyers, who inspected the exhibits on the laptop, noticed the error at the time.

Government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein that they did not believe the inclusion of the nine exhibits warranted upsetting Menendez’s guilty verdict, in part because “there is no reasonable likelihood any juror ever saw any of the erroneously less-redacted versions.” But Menendez’s lawyers told Stein in a separate filing that the improper disclosure was a “serious breach” by prosecutors and said a new trial was “unavoidable.”

The exhibits, they said, “exposed the jury to a theory of criminality that the government was barred from presenting under the Speech or Debate Clause — namely, that Senator Menendez made specific decisions with respect to military sales to Egypt in exchange for bribes.”

Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, senators or House members “shall not be questioned” for “any speech or debate” in either chamber of Congress. Stein had ruled that certain material referencing arms sales and military aid to Egypt were legislative acts shielded by the clause.

Menendez’s defense team said the information disclosed to the jury contained the only evidence that tied him to the provision of military aid to Egypt, which was at the center of the bribery scheme the New Jersey Democrat was accused of engaging in.

They also lambasted prosecutors for attempting to “shift the blame,” calling it “factually and legally outrageous.” 

Prosecutors said the court had “expressly prohibited” evidence of past legislative activity, including actions Menendez allegedly took as a senator about foreign aid to Egypt, and said the evidence at issue “squarely crossed that line … and allowed the jury to infer bribery from Senator Menendez’s legislative acts — exactly what the Speech or Debate Clause is meant to prevent.”

Prosecutors claimed that Menendez helped orchestrate a corrupt agreement through which he would work to secretly benefit the Egyptian government in exchange for lavish gifts including cash, gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz convertible, furniture and mortgage payments from three New Jersey businessmen.

He was convicted on 16 felony counts in July, including bribery, fraud and acting as a foreign agent.

Menendez’s two co-defendants in the case, Fred Daibes and Wael Hana, also separately asked the court to grant them new trials and toss out their convictions.

Menendez faced immense pressure to resign after he was indicted on federal bribery charges last year but resisted doing so until he was convicted. He stepped down from the Senate in August, a stunning capstone to a lengthy career in the upper chamber that included a position atop the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The former senator is set to be sentenced Jan. 29.