E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC News and msnbc.com legal analyst Hampton Dellinger and Melinda Henneberger of The Washington Post discuss the long deliberations in the John Edwards trial, and the speculation surrounding a verdict.
Updated at 6:38 p.m.: The judge in the campaign finance corruption trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards indicated Tuesday that proceedings could stretch well into June after a second closed-door meeting with prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Analysis: John Edwards jury speaks with its silence
|
Stacey Klein of NBC News contributed to this report by Lisa Myers of NBC News and M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook. |
For the second straight court day — there was no session Monday because of the Memorial Day holiday — U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles closed the courtroom in Greensboro, N.C., for about 45 minutes Tuesday morning. Court officials told NBC News she was discussing a "juror issue" with attorneys in the case.
For several days, Eagles has taken extra care to remind jurors that all deliberations must take place in the jury room with all 12 jurors present and only there, raising speculation that one or more of the eight men and four women on the panel may have been discussing the case outside the courthouse. The judge said if jurors talk in small groups it can be divisive and make it more difficult for the group to reach a verdict.
- Full trial coverage on msnbc.com
- Full transcripts of closing arguments
- Analysis by Hampton Dellinger
The original 12 jurors were still in place Tuesday, however, and the strain they were under was obvious, said Hampton Dellinger, a legal analyst for NBC News and msnbc.com.
"They realize they've got a tremendous weight on them, and they don't know what to do with it," Dellinger said on MSNBC-TV's "Hardball."
Before breaking for lunch, Eagles referred to some juror scheduling conflicts, noting that it is "high school graduation season." She asked the jury members to pass along notes with their scheduling needs through the end of next week, suggesting deliberations could drag on well into June, raising the prospect that a trial that started in April could still be in process when summer begins on June 20.
Deliberations resume Wednesday morning.
Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has faced public and private challenges throughout his life and career.
Edwards, 58 — a former U.S. senator from North Carolina and the Democrats' 2004 vice presidential nominee — is charged with six felony counts of accepting about $1 million in illegal and unreported donations during his 2008 presidential campaign from two wealthy supporters at a time when individual donations were limited to $2,300.
If convicted on all counts, Edwards could face 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. As he headed for lunch Tuesday, a confident-looking Edwards told Ben Thompson of NBC station WCNC in Charlotte, N.C., "I feel fine."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
It appears that this jury is taking its responsibilities seriously. No matter what the verdict is, I feel confident they will reach the right conclusion.
This is completely absurd. The people who gave the money knew perfectly well what it was being used for. Neither of them thought of the money as a campaign contribution and Bunny Mellon declared the money on her tax return as a gift to Edwards, which she would not have needed to do for a campaign contribution. The funny thing is that if Edwards is found guilty, the IRS should be forced to return the gift taxes that Mellon paid. The other thing that clearly indicated that these payments were not campaign contributions is that they continued even after Edwards had dropped out of the race. The government has wasted an incredible amount of money on this trial that we simply do not have to waste.
The biggest thing that demonstrates that this case should never have gone to trial is that the supposed experts on campaign finance law do not even agree that there was any violation of the law. Since the statute requires that the violation must be knowing for it to be criminal, there is no way Edwards should ever have been charged. If the experts can not agree that it was even a violation, how can anyone possibly say that it was a knowing violation on Edwards part. Add to this the fact that those who wrote the rules, the FEC says it was not a violation and the total absurdity of this trial becomes clear. I do not understand how this fact could be kept from the jury as it would seem to be material evidence pointing to Edwards innocence. I would love to hear the judge's rationale for keeping this information from being presented by the defense. On top of all of this, the fact that the jury has been deliberating for a week now, and it is very clear that the law does not clearly indicate this was a violation. If it takes this long to even come to a verdict, how can anyone think that Edwards could have possibly known it was illegal. Even if the jury does somehow come back with a guilty verdict, which I highly doubt, I doubt very much that it would stand up on appeal. Right now it looks like it may be headed for a hung jury in which case the government should just cut it's losses and decline to retry the case.
It could well be a 'hung jury'.
Personally, since the Federal Elections Commission has already cleared Edwards, I don't see the point of continuing this silly case. Why the judge barred the FEC from testifying is beyond comprehension, and is certainly the basis of an appeal if he is convicted.
Looking like a hung jury and a retrial
I think any jury should take how ever long is needed to come up with a correct verdict considering all evidence.
I think it was proper to look into the Edwards allegations, yet I personally think that this man has paid one hell of a price for cheating.
He will never be able to tell his wife again, how very sorry and foolish he may have been for hurting her.
I am still learning about politics, I do not know maybe this is not about politics but maybe should have remained a family issue.
I can not believe they found 12 of the dumbest people in that state. This seemed to be a no brainer for many analysis that he would be found not guilty. I can not believe the gov't even brought this to trial.
So did he pay taxes on this "personal" donation? I thought the maximum you could be gifted in a year was $13K without paying taxes. I say we have him pay the taxes and stop wasting everyones time.
Gift taxes are, and were paid by those who gave these gifts. The recipient does not pay any taxes in most cases. That is part of the argument that those giving the money knew that they were not campaign contributions. There was testimony given by Bunny Mellon that she declared the gifts on her income taxes.
Bunny Mellon paid a gift tax to the IRS on the money.
The U.S. Attorney who filed the case against Edwards is a Republican with political ambitions. Obama should have done like Bush and fired all the U.S. Attorneys and replaced them with Democrats. If he had done that then the trial would never have been held and thousands of dollars would have been saved. If Edwards had won the nomination and eventually the presidency then maybe there would be a case here but since he closed down his campaign there was no intent to deceive the public in order to get elected. Plain and simple the man cheated and didn't want his wife to know and tried to cover it up. If he is convicted for that then half the men in the USA need to be behind bars.
And the other half are gay...
Edwards is done as a lawyer and a politician. He was a terrible husband. That being said, why does the US government so often have to beat a dead horse and spend millions of taxpayer dollars in doing so. No one understands the campaign finance laws, not even the people who wrote them. How is a jury to apply them here? Is he guilty? Maybe. Is he innocent? Maybe. Let the jury be hung and let the government drop this persecution of a man who is already living in his own hell.
Since his wife already new about the afffair, he used the money to hide the affair and pregnany from the Amerian Voter, hence as part of his campaign. Thus it was a campaign contribution. Irregardless he is still a scumbag, guilty or not guilty and thankfully his political career is OVER
NOT GUILTY.
Looks like a hung jury. Will the government waste more money on a retrial?
This is a case that should have never gone to trial. There was disagreement between the agencies involved whether or not the law had been broken. If those who know federal law backwards and forwards cannot agree on that, just how can you expect a jury to sift through the complexities and come up with a decision??
Perhaps they should have brought in the jury from another state. North Carolina is still a little backward and many in N.C. lack a good formal education.
They are probably just saying "he is so cute, did you see him making eyes at me." Jurors seem to get star struck and can't think straight. Can't understand how they can look at people like him, OJ, CA and their nasty lawyers and they just can't seem to think logical anymore.