The jury who will hear the Justice Department’s bribery case against Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey has been selected after nearly three days of sifting through a group of 150 New Yorkers.
The 12 jurors and six alternates were sworn in Wednesday in the Manhattan courtroom. Opening statements could begin as soon as Wednesday afternoon.
During the selection process, the pool of potential jurors was read a list of more than 100 possible witnesses in the case, from sitting and former US senators to several sheikhs and former White House officials, as well as a list of companies and entities, including Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The vast majority of those named on the witness list – which is used to help attorneys and the court whittle down the jury pool – will not be called to testify.
The pool of potential jurors – an array of New Yorkers, including pastors, a standup comedian and amateur musicians – were pressed on whether they could be unbiased and fairly consider testimony from law enforcement officers or convicted criminals.
“I’ve already told you ladies and gentlemen how important it is that this case proceed with a fair impartial jury,” federal judge Sidney Stein told the potential jurors on Tuesday, saying that means “people who come without any bias” ready to put aside “anything about this case” they’ve heard from the media.
“This system will only work if people are fair and honest and impartial,” Stein said.
Menendez has been charged with acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Egypt and assisting the government of Qatar, all while taking bribes from several New Jersey businessmen. He is being tried with two of his co-defendants: Wael Hana, an Egyptian American businessman, and Fred Daibes, a New Jersey real estate developer. All three have pleaded not guilty.
The initial group of 150 potential jurors was pared down to less than 100 after the initial phase of the selection process, during which people cited travel plans, including an overseas bar mitzvah and a Paris research grant, as well as work and health issues, when asked if any hardships would prevent them from sitting on a trial that could last over a month.
One potential juror spoke about being a “news junkie” who couldn’t sit on the trial because “I’ve learned about the case significantly. I knew it was Bob Menendez the second I walked in.”
Stein asked if the potential juror could set aside prior knowledge and solely rely on evidence and testimony to decide this case, to which the person replied: “I mean, I think so, but again, you know, this is something I’ve read about.”
When one potential juror cited his new job at a fashion consulting agency and fears that he could be let go if he had to sit on the jury, Stein told him that the trial could be “very interesting.”
“I don’t want you to lose your job,” the judge said, “but by the same token, I think you’ll find this – I think all jurors would find this case … to be very interesting and informative.”
During the more direct phase of questioning potential jurors on what they did for a living and where they got their news, the judge was more lighthearted, bantering with them at times.
After one potential juror said he worked in neuroscience, Stein told him that during a break “you’ll have to tell me … how a worm gets in somebody’s brain,” referring to independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s revelation about a parasitic worm previously entering his brain.
“And again, I’m not doing that to be facetious; I just want to avoid it,” the judge said.
