In a recent legal move, former New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez's attorneys have called for a retrial in his high-profile case which recently saw him convicted on all counts.

Menendez's defense team has urged A Manhattan federal court to overturn his bribery convictions due to jury exposure to tainted evidence during deliberations, as the Daily Caller reports.

On Wednesday, lawyers for Menendez filed a petition in Manhattan federal court arguing that his conviction in July on multiple counts of bribery should be nullified and a new trial granted.

Their main contention is that jurors were given access to flawed evidence that was critical in linking Menendez to alleged corrupt dealings regarding military aid for Egypt.

Detailed Allegations of Prosecutorial Missteps

Adam Fee, Menendez's lead attorney, described the situation as a "serious breach" of legal standards. According to Fee, this breach necessitates a retrial to ensure justice and fairness in the legal process.

The defense is particularly critical of how crucial exhibits were handled, alleging that the government mislabeled evidence that was not supposed to be introduced during the trial.

The defense asserts that almost 3,000 exhibits were impractically reviewed in just a few hours, which they claim prevented a thorough examination of each item's relevance and admissibility.

This rush, they argue, led to the inclusion of exhibits that were constitutionally barred from being presented to the jury.

Menendez's July Conviction and Resignation

Menendez was found guilty of accepting bribes, including $100,000 in gold bars and $480,000 in cash, in exchange for facilitating U.S. military aid to Egypt.

Following these convictions, he resigned from his Senate position in August. His sentencing is currently scheduled for Jan. 29.

The government's stance is that the trial's outcome should stand. Prosecutors have countered that the defense had access to and approved the evidence presented during the trial, including documents on a laptop used by the jury. They argue that the defense's oversight of these documents does not warrant a retrial.

Constitutional Protections and Legal Arguments

During the trial, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein had initially excluded some evidence to protect legislative speech, as dictated by the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause. However, it was later revealed that several trial exhibits contained unredacted information that should not have been shown to the jury.

The defense highlights that treating their failure to catch these errors as a waiver could potentially encourage prosecutorial misconduct. They insist that the government's handling of the exhibits misled the defense into believing all documents were correctly labeled and admitted according to legal standards.

Prosecution's Response to Defense Claims

Prosecutors maintain that the disputed exhibits were of minimal importance and largely redundant, given the other evidence presented at trial. They believe it is unlikely that the jurors even viewed these flawed exhibits, thus arguing that their presence had no significant impact on the verdict.

The case has sparked significant debate over the fairness of the trial process and the safeguards in place to protect the rights of the accused.

As Menendez's legal team pushes for a retrial, the court's decision could have wide-reaching implications for how evidence is handled in high-profile cases.

The retrial petition filed by Menendez's defense is currently under review by the Manhattan federal court, which has yet to make a decision.

The legal community and public alike are watching closely, as the outcome could set important precedents for future judicial proceedings.