Shortly after court proceedings began, defense attorney Raymond Brown criticized Judge William H. Walls for a line in his opinion on Friday. | Getty 'Shut up,' judge tells Menendez lawyer

NEWARK — U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls told a lawyer for Sen. Robert Menendez to "shut up for a moment" as the two engaged in a heated argument during the first moments of the New Jersey Democrat's corruption trial.

Shortly after court proceedings began, defense attorney Raymond Brown criticized Judge William H. Walls for a line in his opinion on Friday that rejected Menendez’s request that the trial be recessed on days where the Senate is taking “critical” votes, so that the senator can be in Washington.


“Quite frankly, your honor, that language is extremely prejudicial to the defense and it comes form the court. I think the court has disparaged the defense,” Menendez attorney Raymond Brown said.

Brown was not completely clear on which passage he was referring to, but it appears to be this part of Walls' opinion: “The Court suspects that the trial strategy behind this motion, if granted, would be to impress the jurors with the public importance of the defendant Senator and his duties. No other plausible reason comes to mind.”

Brown said that Walls was “ speculative as to our motives.” Brown and Walls then began talking over each other.

“Shut up for a moment if you don’t mind,” Walls said. “I said what I said” to “underscore what I considered the lack of merits in this motion," Walls added.

Walls said he “didn’t disparage you.”

“Now I feel quasi-insulted. You tell me where I have ever speculated to affect the interest of a defendant before a jury,” Walls said. “I want you to tell me where I have done something that reasonable jurors and lawyers would consider speculative and proactive.”

Menendez's attorney requested that the lines be struck from Walls’ opinion. Walls denied the request.

“What your request lacks is relevance. There is no relevance to the issues in this case found in your subpoenas. And so consequently, they’re not only vague, but they’re without relevance, and therefore the motion to quash is granted," he said.

