E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter 17 days of testimony, much of it focusing on Edwards' secret affair with Rielle Hunter, jurors made requests for specific evidence and deliberated for about five hours Friday. NBC's Lester Holt reports.
Updated at 6:51 p.m. ET: A jury of eight men and four women began deliberations Friday in the trial of former Sen. John Edwards and retired for the weekend after signaling that it could be some time before they reach a verdict.
|
Chris Vaughn of NBC station WXII in Winston-Salem, N.C., and Ben Thompson of NBC station WCNC in Charlotte, N.C., contributed to this report by Stacey Klein of NBC News and M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook. |
The racially diverse jury, which includes three members with finance-related jobs, is considering whether Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, "knowingly and willfully" violated a 1971 campaign finance law by orchestrating a scheme in which two wealthy donors provided almost $1 million to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, while he sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Jurors got the case late Thursday afternoon and were sent home for the weekend Friday afternoon. Deliberations were scheduled to resume Monday at 9:30 a.m. ET in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C.
Although hundreds of journalists from across the nation filled the square outside the courthouse and microphones were set up, Edwards didn't stop to talk to reporters as he returned to court for the end of the day's proceedings.
A quick verdict "would be surprising considering the complexity of the case," said Hampton Dellinger, a legal analyst for NBC News and msnbc.com. "I think a rush to judgment is not what they want."
- Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
- Full transcripts of closing arguments (.pdf)
- Analysis by Hampton Dellinger
Shortly after they retired to the jury room, the jurors indicated that they intended to take their time reviewing the four weeks of evidence. They asked U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles for a list of all exhibits published by the defense and the prosecution — which runs to hundreds of items — and eight specific exhibits.
The also requested "other notes from Bunny Mellon" — a reference to evidence related to nearly $750,000 contributed by billionaire Edwards supporter Rachel "Bunny" Mellon.
Mellon, who is 101 years old, didn't testify during the trial, but her attorney and financial adviser, Alex Forger, offered extensive testimony that Mellon knew that her donations were intended to fund the "Hunter problem" and weren't given as campaign contributions.
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
The jurors also requested a transcript of Forger's testimony, but Eagles refused to provide it. She said that if they still need it by the middle of next week, she would reconsider that ruling.
The jury comprises eight men and four women. Six of them are white, five are African-American and one is Hispanic.
Dellinger said the makeup probably suited Edwards. The majority of the jurors are from lower-middle and middle-class backgrounds — Edwards' main constituency when he served as a U.S. senator from North Carolina.
And he probably "wanted a jury with as many men as possible who might sympathize with his desire to keep the affair quiet from his wife," Dellinger said.
Edwards faces as long as 30 years in federal prison and fines up to $1.5 million if he is convicted on all counts.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
I feel bad for him. There is little evidence he did anything wrond. Hopefully they can find him not guilty, and stop wasting time on this matter. He had no choice but to try and cover up the affair, most people think it's a bad thing, though I am sure he had his reasons.
I always think, you don't go into a fast food place and order just a burger, you get fries and a coke. Nothing wrong with a little side dish. Honestly, I don't see why his wife had a problem in the first place. Blows my mind.
Chirs150, are you for real?!
I mean it blows your mind that his wife had a problem with this?! He had an affair for goodness sakes! You expect his wife would just shrug her shoulders and smile as if this is not a big deal?!
Your statement blows my mind.
What did he do wrong? Some people are happy with the same old same old, others need to mix it up a bit, nothing wrong with that, just human nature. Plus, his wife was likely focused on her sickness, or some lame excuse like that. The point is, the poor man is having to go through a trial on something that is niether illeagal or immoral.
That is what blows my mind. His wife should have put his needs first, and had no problem with his actions, in my opion.
I understand your point. John is no different from the other adulterous people in the office who were caught and some remain to be seen. He is just human therefore subject to sin. But expecting his wife and children to not mind this, is insane. Mrs Edwards was sick and fightting for her life for crying out loud. That made John very selfish and a very lousy husband.
RIP MRS. EDWARDS.
This ego manic just happened to be running for the President of the United States, has a wife dieing of cancer, is having an affair and impregnates his mistress and then solicits money to cover it up so he can still campaign for office and thought he could pull it off. At the very least he should do time for being a complete idiot.
Ah, Avg Joe, if doing time for being an idiot were possible. I'm having a hard time with the whole pregnancy thing since birth control was availabe in 2008. Seems to me if John had practiced BC he wouldn't be in this fix in the first place.
Which witness were u
I did not hear anyone say he solicited money to cover it up
U ought to do time with bubba for being toopid
Sorry, Avg Joe, but being a complete idiot is not a crime. Maybe it should be -- Aggravated Criminal Stupidity in the First Degree, but it's not, at least not yet. Notice that he was the 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee is never mentioned. Can you imagine if Sarah Palin were being tried for a crime? Every story would contain the words "2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin"! Where are the interviews with Sen. Kerry about what he was judging to be valuable about Edwards when he made this smarmy, egotistical ambulance chaser his running mate?
Also, if these were mere "gifts" to ex-Sen. Edwards (D -NC), as they are well above the threshold to trigger the gift tax, where is the evidence that Bunny Mellon or the other donors paid such? That would be a sure way for Edwards' attorneys to prove their case. If he is acquitted, will that be used as proof that these were in fact gifts and that Ms. Mellon's estate should be billed for the tax due?
Not Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. May not like the man, may not like what he did, but the government didn't prove the case. If for some reason the verdict is guilty, the appeal process will likely through that verdict out. This was a waste of time and money for the federal government.
Before you scream about the morality issue, remember this is a legal issue, and IMHO the government just never got to the level of proof to convict him.
I feel sorry for the jurors. After all, the case isn't about whether or not the guy is a d*ck -- that HAS been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the federal felonies he is accused of involve laws so arcane that they are not even well-understood by most attorneys, including apparently Edwards himself. I like the fact that the jurors are requesting evidence to review, etc., as this shows that they are taking the process and their responsiblities very seriously, which is the only way that the jury system can make sense. But they're stuck essentially with their lives on hold and making an insulting pittance and the more seriously that they take it the longer they're stuck.
We the Jury found Edwards guilty and John-less.
Hopefully the Breck boy is found guilty.
Sorry M Thompson, not on the evidence that was presented.
What is the point of publishing the racial makeup of the jury? I thought we were trying to get away from that stuff. This case has nothing to do with race. Why put race into it -- sounds like election politics.
The only victims of John Edward's crime are his wife (RIP) & family.
The taxpayers & citizens are the victims of the prosecutor's crime of filing politically motivated criminal charges based on his personal ambition. Pure abuse of government power.
i want to hear more from chris150. his stuff is too funny to beleive.
It's called trolling.
This is North Carolina Folks
It takes them two days just to tie their shoes
They probably consider the $7.50 they get a day
As good pay
There is not a man on the jury that knows he would rather have a nice firm healthy girl
To an old bitch that has cancer.
Life sucks get used to it.
Think that for Federal jury duty everyone gets $40/day, which still won't pay the bills of anyone with a life. Also, you are an insulting tool. As so often, this man cheated on a fine woman with a skank. Neither you nor I know what Mrs. Edwards was capable of doing once she was taken ill and it is pointless to speculate. If you are supposedly smart enough to be a big-time malpractice attorney, a Senator, and an almost-Vice President, it looks like that as a minimum you'd be smart enough to make sure that your girlfriend was using birth control, use it yourself, or both.
Once upon a time
It was written
Judge NOT less you be judged also.
I have always thought of sex as for reproduction
Not GRATIFICATION
So once your wife went through menopause you stopped entirely? Man, bet that you are a well-adjusted sort!
I got another younger wife .
U think very much? Math is hard!
I haven't heard anything (maybe I wasn't paying attention?) about the idea that if these payments were "gifts" and not "campaign contributions", were the "gifts" properly reported to the IRS as gifts, and thus subject to income tax by the recipient? If no one paid income tax on the "gifts", then they were clearly NOT gifts, but contributions. And how did the donors write off the gifts on their taxes? If they wrote them off as political contributions, then clearly that was their intent!
So u work fer da irs
and know everything about tax law
Gifts are never income; gift tax is payable by the donor, not the recipient. Also, there is no "writeoff" for political contributions, which are not deductible.
rgul
So u work fer da irs
and know everything about tax law
Now we got two experts
Did income taxes for years and, yes, know a heckuva lot about it -- a whole lot more than you, apparently.
Then how much does Young owe the IRS ?
For stealing over One Million Dollars that was intended for Riall , and he used to build him and his whore a house?
Does the immunity from prosecution let him off of that charge also?
I work Collections for IRS and on my way up I found out no-one knew the Tax Law. We sent an income tax return to all 11 districts we the persons name Mickey Mouse and got 11 differrant results.
The case brought has nothing to do with taxes.
Sure it does. If he had been given legitimate "gifts" of that size, then the donors of those "gifts" would've owed gift tax on them. The fact that no such taxes were paid nor returns filed indicates that they probably considered them to be political contributions, which are neither deductible to the donor nor income to the recipient when used for their intended political purposes.
About your comment about sending 11 complicated returns to the (then) 11 districts and getting 11 different answers, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that. The Internal Revenue Code is too long, too complicated, and in part worded in such as way that "code" is the only way to describe it, except that it is a code that no one can authoritatively decipher. Now, if it is a simple return with only wages, interest, dividends and either a standard deduction or the simple ones like mortgage interest and state and local taxes, then you either get the right answer or you did it wrong. If it includes self-employment (especially in a business with an inventory), depreciation and amortization, or something even more arcane like timber sales, several different advanced practitioners could get several different answers with the same inputs and all be arguably right, or arguably wrong.
Most 'gifts" are not given in an ellaborate smoke and mirrors manner.
Recieve a lot of Gifts do we?
"Bunny" Mellon sounds like a stripper but at 101 none that I care to see. Maybe some scale should be set like after a certain age money is paid to the person watching.
Bless her heart, that is true, but I could never make fun of a little old centenarian lady, now deceased. Now I do wonder what she looked like in her heyday, circa 1933.
Stone pipe
sounds like he gets a lot of rocks in his mouth sucking on his pipe