E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSHampton Dellinger, an election law expert reporting for msnbc.com, and Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, go over the details of the John Edwards trial.
ANALYSIS
Updated at 5:21 p.m. ET: After months of pretrial hearings and weeks of jury selection, the trial of John Edwards really started Monday. The jury pool was winnowed from 42 to 16 (12 jurors and four alternates); in the afternoon came the opening statements.
 Hampton Dellinger, a litigation partner with Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson of Charlotte and Chapel Hill, N.C., is former deputy attorney general of North Carolina and has taught election law at Duke University Law School. In 2008, he sought the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor of North Carolina. |
I've tried to answer as many questions as possible in trial previews for The Atlantic and for msnbc.com. But here are five key questions that remain unresolved and that could determine the trial's outcome:
Who's in charge?
You've heard of "blended families"? This case features two "blended trial teams." Edwards has churned through nearly a dozen lawyers but has settled finally on the threesome of Washington-based Abbe Lowell and North Carolina lawyers Alan Duncan and Allison Van Laningham. The latter two joined Team Edwards just a month ago, but they know well the key fact witnesses (Edwards, his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and political aide-turned-legal nemesis Andrew Young), having represented Hunter in her civil lawsuit against Young over possession of the infamous "sex tape." Lowell has led Edwards' defense team since August. The eleventh-hour addition of Duncan and Van Laningham seems to have gone smoothly, but the test will come when the jury is in the box. How much of a role will Lowell (and Edwards) let the local lawyers play? (I predict a big one, particularly for Van Laningham.)
Trial of John Edwards over mistress funds is set to start
The prosecution trial team has been more stable, but it is also a Washington-North Carolina mix. Two lawyers are from the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department in Washington, and the third, Robert Higdon, is with the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh, N.C. Combining "Main Justice" and "Main Street" federal prosecutors proved disastrous in the Ted Stevens case. Public Integrity needs this prosecution to be scandal-free. (I predict it will be.)
Chris Keane/Reuters
John Edwards arrives with daughter Cate Edwards at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Monday morning.
Beyond the two legal teams, there is the larger issue of the extent to which U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles will rein in or let loose the lawyers in terms of both the pace and the substance of their work.
Will the former Federal Election Commission members get to testify?
Two former FEC chairmen, Robert Lenhard and Scott E. Thomas, are prepared to testify that Edwards' conduct does not violate civil law, much less criminal. Eagles has so far denied prosecution efforts to bar their testimony but has instructed Edwards' counsel "not to address [FEC] expert testimony during opening statements." Whether the commissioners ultimately testify, and to what extent they are permitted to opine, may ultimately be more important than whether Hunter or Edwards take the stand.
|
Key documents Here are some of the key documents in the John Edwards trial. All are in .pdf form: Edwards motions to dismiss for lack of notice Edwards motion to dismiss for prosecutorial bias |
Does the jury focus more on the facts or the law? On what this case is or what this case isn't?
There are many ways to view the Edwards case, but here are the two most salient to my mind:
The prosecution will want the jury to focus on the facts and what the case is about. The defense hopes the jury fixates on the law and what the case is not about.
Here's why. Edwards' personal conduct (cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and lying about it) is abhorrent. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in "off the books" activity in the orbit of a political candidate should be troubling to all but the most laissez faire observer. The more the jury focuses on the facts of what did happen, the more likely is a conviction. Conversely, the strength of Edwards' defense lies in the lack of legal precedent (i.e., law) for a criminal prosecution based on the pattern of facts present here and how his actions differ from the typical political corruption cases (i.e., quid pro quos, excessive and unreported donations that pay for TV ads, get-out-the-vote or other direct campaign support, or lobbyist-sponsored lining of a politician's pockets). The more Edwards is able to introduce evidence (through the former campaign regulators or otherwise) about the legal novelty of the charges against him, the better his chances.
Slideshow: John Edwards' public life
How well will the jury understand the case?
The Edwards case is no ordinary whodunit. When a death is ruled a murder, there's no doubt someone committed a crime. The jury's role is then limited to deciding whether or not the defendant is the perpetrator. In the Edwards trial, the jury must first decide whether key facts are established (What did Edwards do? What did he know?). Then it must determine whether those facts constitute criminal activity. I've worked on campaign finance lawsuits as an attorney, taught election law as a professor and followed the Edwards investigation and prosecution closely from the outset. Maybe I'm alone in finding the issues of law and fact implicated by this case complex (and at times confusing), but I doubt it.
What will the jury instructions and the verdict form consist of?
Because of the case's complexity and its likely duration of a month or longer, the jury instructions and the verdict form that will close the trial could be of paramount importance. So far, they have received little attention. But as the trial winds down, expect heated arguments (oral and in written, and outside the presence of the jury) between the prosecution and the defense over the precise wording of each.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
All a big waste of tax payers $! Though i bet the boys in cell block 9 would like some of tat purrrrty boy.
What a total waste is right! Maybe if he had invested some of that $500 haircut money into a couple of condoms or amybe even asomeone to ensure he doesn't mistep since he has no morals or conscience, he would be in the whitehouse or next in line for it right now.
How can we be sure WE THE TAXPAYERS are not paying for the prosecution and the defense? If he truly is paying out of HIS pocket that will be some justice that it cuts into his wealth . . .
What is wrong with our politicians? Or, maybe everyone who gets any power? The second someone gets voted in, or some creep's king daddy dies, the hearts, souls & integrity of these people begins to deteriorate! They turn into the most disgusting, money grubbing, vile humans on the planet!! I figure it's the huge stick that someone in authority must shove up their ass when they're sworn in. The sticks are too long & it punctures their brains!! There's just no other explanation!!
ted turner said it best , money causes your @!$%#ty personality to get more @!$%#ty.
6th Big question - Will John Edwards channel the voices of unborn babies in THIS trial? Or has he delegated that to his defense team?
Convict him and hang him since he is a dumb ass democrat!
Jimmy Hoffa, he is a dumb azz man, pure and simple, political affiliation aside.
"Convict him and hang him since he is a dumb ass democrat!"
So you want to hang him for being a democrat? Nice, does communism ring a bell with you? Would you feel the same if he was a dumb ass Republican?
Guys, seriously, from the perspective of a woman, I don't give a rip what he is. In fact, he's less than nothing in my eyes. Cheating on your wife, especially when she is critically ill, flies in the face of all that is remotely decent. Just own it, guys, he's slime and it doesn't matter what package you put him in.
totally agree with U especially when we consider a childs health care is also about parentage, sacrificing a (and when it's yours) childs health for a political career.
He's ruined, either way, and it appears they are going to spend big bucks on this trial. What's the point? This fellow acted badly, got caught, and even if he doesn't think he did anything wrong, he has lost all his political power. Not the mention the fact no one would hire him to bring a law suit. Even if some one did, he would be ineffective counsel because of his trashed name. He's gotta find something else to do. Perhaps a behind the scene lawyer, if he isn't disbarred.
John Edward should go where all thieves go; that is to jail.
IIII my symbol of a jailJohn Edwards should go where all thieves go.....Congress.
Oh....wait....that's where he came from........my bad.
Guess the only thing for him now is to "find God" and become a televangelist.
trust me CPO Sharkey, Mr. Edwards is about to find "GOD" in a big way...
What is really funny is that this must be rampant all through the political system. Years ago, the news media covered up politicians' shenanigans...including JFK and all his mistresses, and even Jackie smoking cigarettes....horrors, especially back then. Now they climb all over each other to get the "breaking news".
Just another weasel being defended by circling sharks. Hope they (the circling sharks) take him for every last penny he has. I'd pay good $$$ to be on that jury.
The funny/ironic part is he used to be one of those sharks.
Doesn't that make you quite the weasel too?
Sounds like a political witch hunt, leave the guy alone.
you liberal idiot.
Poltical witch hunt my a$$! This guy is a lying cheat, spend money to cover it up that wasn't allowed to be spent on crap like this, and you want us to leave him alone? You must have the same characteristics as him to defend him.
There is nothing illegal about accepting help in making blackmail payments from others. That is not a campaign contribution because it is not part of a fair campaign. It is to prevent illegal blackmail that should be illegal in the first place. It is to return a campaign to equality, not to get an unfair advantage. He did nothing illegal and nothing much different than most politicians.
4-12-12
WHY is John Edwards on trial? He may or may not have used campaign funds in an inappropriate manner but you tell me what candidate hasn’t… ESPECIALLY THE REPUBLICANS! I didn’t see a persecution for John Ensign or any other of the 100’s of depraved, cheating Republicans. Yea, where was the holding cell and chains for Larry Craig, Ted Haggard or Mark Foley… REALLY?
Oooohhh, but just let all those vicious Bush/Cheney prosecutors get their slimy hands on a Democrat. (Republicans in Congress have blocked Obama/Biden Justice appointments) John Edwards as an easy target for the GOP hopefuls (notice the trial starts the same time as the Romney VS Obama campaigns) Everyone loved Elizabeth… and John cheating on her was blown way out of proportion by both Conservative and Liberals… Oh yea The Left-wing and the Democratic Party threw Edwards under the bus (Like ACORN, Jones, Sherrod, Warren, etc)
John Edwards was a good legislator and a good man who really cared about the American PEOPLE. He defended those citizens who were violated by greed stricken Corporations and power mad politicians. His wife was very ill and their was a sexy Blond around to give him head on the campaign trail… COME ON! What man wouldn’t? Even Pat Robertson preached once a man’s wife is close to death, the man can “move on”. Honestly, Edwards has children who just lost their mom, does ANYONE really want him to go to jail other than the RNC, Karl Rove and Dick Armey?
You prudes in the news media destroyed John Edwards reputation like you tried to do to Bill Clinton in the 90’s. What did all that private sexual encounters reporting get for Americans? George W. Bush? Thank for nothing you bunch of sell-out cowards. Like I always say responsible journalism is dead as the sperm on Monica Lewinski’s blue dress. You play the game so you get invited to all the best parties, right Mika and Joe? I’ve heard a lot of sordid stories about the deviant sex lives of news anchors and the so-called expert punditry.
What ever happened to good old investigative reporting, keeping the public INFORMED on issues that made a difference in their daily lives? This opinion based talk, sex/celebrity scandal thing you call NEWS isn’t working for us. If it was the Bush/Cheney corporate crime wave or Tea Party big money finagling would have NEVER happened! Maybe the long arm of the LAW needs to take a LONG look at the GOP & likes of Koch Bros… it’s like the Justice Department never heard of the R.I.C.O. Act or spoact.blogspot.com
Right after this trial, perhaps we can investigate the coke head that lied us into 2 wars and bankrupted our country. Then we can investigate the coke heads ties to enron and the fraud that they perpetrated by manipulating the energy markets.
The first thing we need though, is for President Obama to sign an executive order that reverses the law signed by the senile idiot raygun that allowed health insurance companies to be for profit and that took away the hospitals that we tax payers built and paid for and then GAVE themm to the legalized crime health insurance cabal.
Thank you, Spo, and I can think of a sixth question:
Why is John Edwards facing 30 years in prison, when he might well have gotten a shorter sentence if he had killed his mistress.
Why is it none of the deeds the Republicans do sweeped under the rug Like Newt when he was the hardest one On Clinton when he hisself was having an affair.
You can't tell me that that all those running for office didn't use their funds for other things them the election,
The only judge on what he did is God and his family get a life!
Its no wonder that this country keeps electing the same people back into office time and time again and we get the same old sorry results from them. You do not hold them accountable but instead point the finger at the "other" party and cry "but they do it all the time and get away with it". Unbelievably pathetic.
What an example this pillar of the community is setting for the rest of the legal establishment...risking a felony and lifetime disbarment....He doesn't need more lawyers as much as he needs to find his faith, since apparently he has lost it to conduct himself this way.
SpoAct, your post was most enlightening. I wish you would have wrote the front headline rather than the celebrity/gossip tabloid $hit we are fed routinely in all mainstream media. I browse mainstream media to gain an understanding of the spin. I agree with your perspective on the status of investigative reporting etc. in our country. Unfortunately we live in a police state and the reality of our freedom living enjoying democracy of the people, for the people is smoke and mirrors. Oh yeah, I took the red pill in case you were wondering (the blue ones were back ordered).
What a sleazeball. Is that a chargeable crime?
When he is even an outcast in Chapel Hill, that is how far he has sunk, and I hope it gets even lower, ie, he can't score in a trailer park in Robbins.
Rich men have slick lawyers. Why even bother with a trial.
My only question is this. Is bricking a legal form of punishment in North Carolina? For those unfamiliar with the concept it was a widely used way of neutering rams........
My 5 questions are:
1. How did a coke head manage to steal the election? Simple. FLORIDA.
2. How did a coke head manage to lie us into 2 wars?
3. What happened to the BILLIONS in cash that the 2 war criminals, bush and that scumbag cheney, shipped to Iraq?
4. How did they manage to escape being investigated for bankrupting our country?
5. Since the lying scumbags started a war "to stabilize oil prices", why are oil prices not stabilized.
Any of you idiots that elected the coke head to 2 terms that want to weigh in, vote in November so we can verify that you are a REAL loser.
@nobsartist....you are the freshest breath of reson and truth I have read here in months...way to go!!
Well unfortunately as was proven with ol Bill we care a hell of a lot more about the sleazy things politicians do in their sex lives than the sleazy things they do with our money... I can't explain why but that consistantly seems to be the truth. Just don't get caught having sex with someone other than your wife and we'll put up with anything you throw at us.
In all the hoop la, Being that I voted fo Edwards, which I now regret, if you from the previous trial, both the people contributing the funds, have stated it was on a contribution, Edwards had a private issue and they were helping him with that. I think it is a waste of time and money, because in the end this man will probably be found not guilty. One man has passed away, the other lady is over 100 years old and is frail, but she has a great mind even for her age. I believe them when they say this was not a contribution to his fund. No matter what happened between him and Elizabeth it is between him and Elizabeth. Elizabeth stated he would be raising her children, i think she forgave him, but in a way I don't think he has forgiven himself. Be that as it may, if these people did not make contribution, as they themselves have stated under oath, then we should not be going through this farce of a trial. but as you everyone knows our govenment likes to throw good money after bad.
And to think liberals were about to nominate this moron. If one ever thinks that it couldn't be worse than what is in the WH now, just think if Edwards had gotten elected.
Wow, I must have been asleep or in an alternate reality for 10 years because I don't recall edwards ever coming close to winning the nomination for POTUS.
Did FOX or the NRA tell you what to think about this article??
ahhh yes it was the national enquirer that broke this story. the leftist media never reported it until way after the fact....(until they had to)
The guy is not guilty of useing the money inprperly. Guilty of being a pig.
"The guy is not guilty of useing the money inprperly. Guilty of being a pig."
That's not against the law.
Gee. I'm conservative, and I don't know if the man is guilty of a crime or not, because no one has heard the evidence yet, and ... golly, what a concept ... I believe in innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt ... in a court of law, not in the media!
The prosecution has a duty to try cases that they believe were 1) crimes; 2) the party charged is the party that committed the crime(s); and 3) they believe can/will result in a conviction. In every case that is tried in every courthouse in this country every day of the year, there are people that believe that the prosecution is wrong, wrong, wrong, and yet people are convicted in at least some (and I believe it's the majority) of those cases. Guess some of those who have posted here think that was a waste of time since they would have believed those people wouldn't have been convicted, either.
As for why prosecute, and who cares - IF Edwards performed criminal acts (and as I mentioned earlier, I don't know if he did or not at this point), why shouldn't he be held to the same standards as anyone else who committed a criminal act and tried? If anything, if there is evidence to prove a crime occurred and the person charged knew/should have known it was taking place, politicians especially should be held accountable. Even if Edwards is acquitted (which means the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that he is innocent), politicians are finally being put on notice that they do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want and to disregard the law.
John Edwards is being prosecuted because he cheated on his dead wife more than a violation of law. Another case of the misuse of the courts. Edwards is no angel by any means and needs to be stripped of his law license and forfeit of every dime he took in as campaign funds. But since the government put Tom Delay in prison then Edwards head is on the block. Politics being used to prosecute people.
Elizabeth was not dead when this took place. If John Edwards allowed money of any kind related to his campaign to be given to Rielle Hunter that was illegal. His defense attorneys are trying to make it look like his campaign adviser pocketed the money for his own use. Looks like John Edwards is willing to pull everyone down to make himself look good. It's a shame John Edwards used these two elderly contributors - would they have donated their money had they known what he was hiding?
Here's another question: Does anyone think for a moment that this sleazeball lawyer will actually be convicted of anything? Please. He'll find some way to wriggle out of this one. Lawyers protect their own.
Total LIEberal....Edwards could be the LIEberal poster child...
What a pain; The problem for Edwards is that he got caught. He's no more slimy than most of the political twits out there. The minute the article mentions- that it's not any ordinary "who-done-it" and then relates it to murder? What are trying to place in the mind of the reader? Where's your editor?
Sorry....Edwards is the "Ambulance chaser" poster child....What a total fraud and giant piece of carp this fake humanitarian turned out to be....and one of the BEST $500 hair cut limousine LIEberals of all time!!!!!!!
Mr. Dellinger poses the right questions. The most critical is whether it is unlawful to spend your own money or a friend's money on his misterss. If Mr. Edwards used campaign funds to do it then it would seem to be against the law, otherwise it's not.
Win or lose in court, his political career is finished already.
How can Andrew Young be believed even under oath? He lied about being the baby's father because it was to his benefit. Now it is to his benefit to sell books, and prolonging the Edwards' story will keep it current. The sourse of the money looks questionable at best. When is a gift to a someone a campaign contribution anyway? Is there some way to measure intent?
What's kinda interesting is that apparently Andrew Young, who was the conduit, kept some of the money.
Which brings up the question, did he report the amount he kept as income on his tax returns?
And, if he didn't, is the government prosecuting him also for tax evasion?
And, if the government is not prosecuting him for tax evasion, did they make a deal with him in exchange for his testimony against Edwards?
This one has all the makings of an afternoon soap opera......
Yes, Andrew Young admitted being the baby's father - to protect John Edwards. In return, John Edwards puts the blame on Young with misusing the campaign contributions - some friend Edwards turned out to be.