NEWARK -- If a federal judge decides to toss bribery charges against U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, it would set a dangerous precedent, prosecutors argued in their latest brief Saturday.

A decision by U.S. District Judge William H. Walls to dismiss the charges on the basis of that ruling, prosecutors wrote, "would decriminalize the most egregious forms of corruption, incentivizing greedy businessmen to put politicians on retainer and immunizing lawmakers who solicit bribes in exchange for a promise to perform official acts, as opportunities arise."

Defense attorneys for the Democratic lawmaker and Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, both on trial in U.S. District Court, have cited the Supreme Court's decision overturning the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell as a basis for their motion to dismiss the bribery charges.

McDonnell had been convicted of corruption charges for taking gifts from a businessman for whom he arranged meetings with state officials.

In overturning his conviction, the high court narrowed the range of "official acts" by a public official that could form the basis for a bribery prosecution, ruling that "setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event" didn't meet that standard.

On Wednesday, the defense attorneys argued that same ruling also invalidated the "stream of benefits" theory advanced by the prosecution -- that Melgen lavished Menendez with expensive gifts in expectation of the senator's help "as opportunities arose" in the future.

In their own brief, prosecutors said the McDonnell decision never specifically addressed that theory, only the "official acts" required for a bribery prosecution.

An appeals court has since cited the decision in overturning the convictions of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, and former state Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, a Republican. Federal prosecutors have vowed to retry both men.

But in the Menendez case, prosecutors argued, the stream-of-benefits theory in question has been repeatedly affirmed by other courts since the Supreme Court's ruling.

"If McDonnell invalidated the stream of benefits theory, however, then Silver may indeed rest easy," prosecutors wrote. "So can Dean Skelos. And so too could any public official who is ready to put a price tag on his willingness to perform yet-unspecified official action at some point in the future when the opportunity arises to aid a benefactor."

The defense had filed a motion to dismiss the indictment prior to the start of the trial, but Walls had postponed his decision until after hearing the government's evidence. Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday after six weeks of testimony by government witnesses in Newark.

Defense attorneys have argued there is no proof of a corrupt agreement between the longtime friends, and in a motion for acquittal on the bribery charges filed Sunday, said the circumstantial evidence produced at trial "cannot sustain a conviction under the jury instructions that McDonnell requires."

In addition to the alleged bribery scheme, Menendez is also charged with omitting Melgen's gifts from Senate financial disclosure forms with the criminal intent to conceal them. Walls told attorneys he will allow that false statements charge to go to the jury regardless of his ruling on the bribery charges.

Walls is expected to hear further arguments Monday when the trial resumes.

Thomas Moriarty may be reached by email at tmoriarty@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter at @ThomasDMoriarty. Find NJ.com on Facebook.