U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez’s corruption trial is moving forward after a federal judge Monday declined to throw out any of the 18 charges against the Democratic senator and his co-defendant, Salomon Melgen.

The highly anticipated ruling by U.S. District Judge William H. Walls had the potential to deliver Menendez a legal and political victory in his years-long fight against the allegations while also undermining a legal theory federal prosecutors have used for years to build bribery cases against public officials.

As it turned out, none of that happened.

Instead, attorneys for Menendez and Melgen began to present jurors with their side of the story Monday afternoon, calling Menendez's son, Robert Jr., and Melgen's wife, Flor, to testify.

MENENDEZ TRIAL:5 audiences that matter outside the courtroom

PROSECUTORS: Pending ruling in Menendez trial could ‘legalize’ corruption

The testimony elicited from Menendez’s son reinforced a key element of the senator’s defense: that he and the doctor were such close friends they would never think to, or need to, engage in bribery.

“They’re the best when they’re together,” Menendez, 32, said in response to questions from defense attorney Jenny Kramer. “They’re like brothers to each other. There’s no person that my dad has that type of relationship with. It’s different than all his other friendships.”

Menendez got emotional describing the death of his grandmother — his father’s mother — due to Alzheimer’s and the trip Melgen made to be with the senator in his time of mourning.

“It meant a lot,” Menendez said.

When she took the stand, Flor Melgen said her husband and the senator were so close that her family often referred to them by a single name: “Sabob.”

In a moment of comic relief, Melgen then misunderstood a question posed by defense attorney Kirk Ogrosky, and translated by a Spanish interpreter, in which Ogrosky asked if Melgen had a relationship with the senator independent of her husband.

“I am married and I am loyal to my husband,” Melgen said to laughter by jurors and others in the courtroom.

“I’d like to strike that question,” Ogrosky said. “Is Mr. Menendez a friend of yours also?”

“Yes, he is,” Melgen replied. “And I always look forward to that call I get on my birthday when he sings to me.”

Disappointed but not doomed

While certainly disappointing for Menendez, the judge's ruling Monday doesn't necessarily mean that the senator's defense is doomed. Walls was ruling on a defense motion arguing that prosecutors, who rested their case last week, had failed to present enough evidence to prove their accusations.

So-called Rule 29 motions are allowed in any criminal case, although dismissals on that basis are rare. As Walls explained, in ruling on the motion he had to consider the available evidence “in a light most favorable to the government."

Menendez's fate in the courtroom is now back in the hands of the jury.

In its 18-count indictment, the government accused Menendez of lobbying Obama administration officials on Melgen's behalf in exchange for bribes in the form of flights on Melgen’s private jet, luxury vacations and more than $700,000 in political contributions.

Both men deny the allegations, and their attorneys must have felt that their motion had a chance to succeed after Walls made comments last week raising doubts about whether a legal concept used to prove bribery, known as the "stream of benefits" theory, was still valid after a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the reach of federal bribery laws.

Walls had suggested that language in the high court’s opinion overturning the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell requires prosecutors to show that Menendez agreed to do a specific official act on behalf of Melgen, a Florida eye doctor and longtime friend, at the same time he agreed to accept a specific gift or payment.

The government has alleged a less formal type of corruption: that Melgen bribed Menendez with a "stream of benefits” to influence Menendez’s actions "as opportunities arose."

In a weekend filing, prosecutors wrote that invalidating the "stream of benefits" theory would not only damage their case against Menendez but also “jettison the vast majority of bribery prosecutions” and “broadly legalize pay-to-play politics.”

Walls said Monday that he could find no reason to invalidate the theory.

“In the academic world, there have been articles written testing whether McDonnell obviated the existence of a 'stream of benefits' theory," Walls said. "But ... I see nothing in McDonnell that attacks the 'stream of benefits' theory.”

The trial is set to resume Tuesday morning.

Email: pugliese@northjersey.com