John Edwards unlikely to be retried after jury deadlocks
Rise and fall of John Edwards
A
look at the meteoric rise of Edwards, a lawyer turned senator and
presidential hopeful, and hard fall amid a scandal the prosecutors
claimed Edwards broke laws to try to cover up.
1976
1979
1977
Marriage
John
and Elizabeth Edwards are married. That same year, Edwards receives a
law degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The
couple is seen here on their wedding day.
Edwards family via AP
John Edwards unlikely to be retried after jury deadlocks
Former North Carolina senator John Edwards was acquitted of one count of corruption and a U.S. District Court
judge declared a mistrial on five other counts after the jury
deadlocked in the sensational case against a onetime rising political
star — and it is unlikely he will be tried again on the charges.
- By Sara D. Davis, Getty Images"There is no one else responsible for my sins": John Edwards struck a tone of contrition as he addressed the news media alongside his daughter Cate, left, and parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards.
"There
is no one else responsible for my sins": John Edwards struck a tone of
contrition as he addressed the news media alongside his daughter Cate,
left, and parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards.
Sponsored Links
As
he left the courtroom Thursday in Greensboro, N.C., Edwards thanked the
jurors for "their diligence" and spoke with apparent contrition.
"I
want to make sure that everyone hears from me and from my voice that
while I do not believe I did anything illegal or ever thought I was
doing something illegal, I did an awful, awful lot that is wrong," he
said, standing next to his mother, father and oldest daughter. "And
there is no one else responsible for my sins."
The Justice Department
declined to comment on the outcome and whether prosecutors would seek
to retry Edwards. But a source familiar with the case who wasn't
authorized to speak on the record said another prosecution was unlikely.
Marcellus McRae, a former federal prosecutor, agreed.
"The facts aren't going to change; the law isn't going to change," he said. "Why should the outcome change?"
The
seven-week-long trial — which included testimony about Edwards using
money and subterfuge to hide his relationship with a campaign
videographer — ended with an afternoon of confusion. The jury first
returned to the courtroom with a decision, prompting reporters to spill
out of the courthouse and sending cable news networks into overdrive.
The
jury foreman then informed the judge that the panel had reached a
unanimous verdict on just one count. U.S. District Judge Catherine
Eagles ordered the eight men and four women back to the jury room to
continue deliberations. Soon afterward, when they sent a note saying
they were deadlocked, she declared a mistrial on the other five counts.
Edwards: Responsible for own 'sins'
Edwards' attorney, Abbe Lowell, had urged a mistrial, noting that the deliberations had lasted almost as long as the prosecution took to present its case.
Edwards,
who twice sought the Democratic presidential nod and was nominated for
vice president in 2004, had faced six felony charges that carried prison
terms of up to five years each.
Prosecutors argued he oversaw a conspiracy to use nearly $1 million from two rich supporters to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter,
during the 2008 campaign. The government said that violated the $4,600
limit on what individuals could donate to a federal candidate in that
election.
The defense responded that the money
amounted to personal gifts not covered by campaign-finance law, and it
said Edwards was trying to keep his ailing wife, Elizabeth, from
discovering his infidelity. She died of cancer in 2010.
The
jury voted unanimously to acquit Edwards on the charge of taking
illegal campaign contributions in 2008 from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon. Their
failure to reach accord on other charges, even after nine days of
deliberations, underscored the difficulty of the government's case.
"Trying
to win a criminal conviction on complex FEC reporting matters is
inherently difficult and generally not appropriate for criminal
prosecution," Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said afterward.
"The
entire case depends on determining his intent," McRae said of Edwards.
"Was his intent to influence the outcome of an election or was it to
conceal an affair from his wife? When you have to get into mind-reading,
that's a hard case to make."
Edwards' notoriety also may have helped him.
"In
general, it is difficult to prosecute people of some celebrity," said
Robert Bittman, who served as a deputy independent counsel in the
investigation of President Clinton.
"Frequently, you are faced with jurors who are willing to give a person
like that the benefit of the doubt even when that person is the subject
of some very negative information, as Edwards was in this case."
He added, "Unlike a theft, robbery or murder, people don't have a visceral reaction to wrongdoing in a case like this."
When
the decision came, Edwards closed his eyes and rubbed his face,
according to WNCN of Raleigh, N.C., which had a reporter in the
courtroom. He hugged his daughter, Cate, and his parents and whispered,
"I told you this would be OK."
At stake in the
case was not only Edwards' future but also the Justice Department's
reputation in the wake of its botched 2008 corruption case against
then-Alaska senator Ted Stevens. The Stevens case collapsed when it was disclosed that prosecutors withheld key information from defense lawyers.
The
case prompted rebukes from a federal judge and new leadership in a unit
that handles some of the government's most sensitive prosecutions. Last
week, two Stevens prosecutors were recommended for suspensions related
to misconduct.
There were no accusations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Edwards trial. end quote from:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-31/john-edwards-mistrial-retrial/55319212/1
Most prosecutors and judges wouldn't have taken or tried this case. However, I think an example had to be made of John Edwards because he was dancing around the edge of the law on this one. However, the charges could not be effectively proven which is why most prosecutors and judges would not have taken this case. Especially because his assistant took some of the money and built a green house with it in his back yard it was going to be impossible to convict John Edwards. And I don't think one could convict his assistant either for sort of being his "Bag Man" in regard to the cash. Likely the extremely rich people who donated 700,000 dollars to the mother of his out of wedlock child and the child also said that they were not making a donation to his campaign. So, there really was no way to find him guilty but only to make an example of him so other politicians don't do what he did. And if you are any politician on earth, you might think twice about doing what John Edwards did because of the damage to your family and reputation ongoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment