Plan B Forum

The John Edwards jury is in its 8th day of deliberation, trying to decide whether the nearly $1MM he/his campaign received from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron, which he used to "hide" his mistress and love child, violated federal laws. Edwards could face up to 30 years in prison.

The longest jury deliberation I've faced (so far) was 3 days, after an 11 day trial. The wait was excruciating. I have no love for Edwards, but I know the lawyers on both sides are walking on pins and needles right now and I have a lot of empathy for them.

So, you be the jury -- does Edwards get convicted, or not?

My understanding is that in her jury instructions that Judge Catherin Eagles told the jury that the standard for conviction was whether or not "a" reason for the money being solicited and paid was Edwards campaign rather than "the" reason....

I understand from some lawyer friends of mine that that instruction, given the wording of the statute could be grounds for an appeal, but given that instruction it seems to me that from the jury's perspective, a vote for conviction should have been a slam dunk....

But it looks like it very well may hang...

Or another possibility is that they may try to split the difference by voting to convict on just one or two of the six charges, which I understand would not make a whole lot of difference in terms of sentencing, versus conviction on all six.

(BTW, I've been meaning to post about this, and I want to apologize to Sue for not starting a thread about it earlier...I know how much she's always looked forward to my updates on the travails of Papa John... )

I have always said the government's case was weak at best, and my opinion is only reinforced by the length of the deliberations. I think what Edwards did was reprehensible and a betrayal of his wife, his children and his supporters (including myself); it was a terrible and tawdry story and it may make him an awful person, but it doesn't make him a criminal. I think the jury probably recognizes this, but is still looking for some way to whack him for being a douchenozzle.

I thought he'd been found guilty by the public court of tabloid inquiry in any case, the question is is he hung by his head or his balls?

The jurors are to decide whether the donors -- Mellon and Baron -- gave this money with the purpose to influence an election. Subsequently, they need to figure out whether the law requires that influencing an election be the sole reason ('the' reason) for giving money, as the defense team interprets the law, or only one of the reasons ('a' reason), as the prosecution sees the case.

I'm not sure what this says about my personal biases but this trial is being conducted in a southern court. I often feel that these juries are more visceral than intellectual. So the instructions as given by Judge Eagles, seemingly cloaked in ambiguity, will be so loosely interpreted by the jurors which will most likely lead to a "not guilty" verdict or, no better or no worse than a hung jury. Regardless, I'll accept whatever the verdict even though I find Edwards to be reprehensible, scumbag.

(Cue: "Dueling Banjos")

I finally found the exact wording of the relevant part of the instructions:

The judge went with the following wording:

"The government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money was to influence the election. People rarely act with a single purpose in mind. On the other hand, if the donor would have made the gift or payment notwithstanding the election, it does not become a contribution merely because the gift or payment might have some impact on the election. Nor does it become a contribution just because the donor knew it might have some influence on the election and found that acceptable, if the donor’s real purpose was personal or otherwise unrelated to the election.”

In other words, Eagles continued, the government has to prove the supporters “had a real purpose or an intended purpose to influence an election in making the gift or payment.”

http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/2012/0 ... l/aa7s80w/

No wonder the jury is having such a hard time sorting this out....

The first sentence that I highlighted makes it seem extremely straight forward; "GUILTY! Next case..."....

Then all the verbiage that follows, obfuscates, parses, and qualifies that simple declarative statement to the point of confusing self contradiction...

Let's just look at these two sentences:

"The government does not have to prove that the sole or only purpose of the money was to influence the election."

" Nor does it become a contribution just because the donor knew it might have some influence on the election and found that acceptable, if the donor’s real purpose was personal or otherwise unrelated to the election."

How on earth do you reconcile those two statements?

"The government doesn't have to prove it was the sole purpose, but it's okay if the donor knew it was one of the purposes"...

Judge Queen Of Hearts, Presiding....

She is drawing a distinction between what may have been the donors purpose vs. what may have been unintended effects.

This piece is also important, I think:

if the donor would have made the gift or payment notwithstanding the election, it does not become a contribution merely because the gift or payment might have some impact on the election.

So if the jury believes the donor would have made the payment to cover Edwards's ass even if he wasn't in the middle of a campaign, it won't be considered a contribution. That could well be a matter of some debate among the jurors.

She is drawing a distinction between what may have been the donors purpose vs. what may have been unintended effects.

But Scooter, how can that be when she uses the language:

"the donor knew it might have some influence"

The distinction between "knowing" something is going to happen as a result of your actions, and "intending" that it happen, seems like a mighty thin one to me....

And one that could easily have 12 lay people arguing without conclusion for eight days....(or eight months)

Personally, I think those were terrible jury instructions....

It looks to me like she was really trying to split the baby halfway between the instructions the prosecution wanted, and the instructions the defense wanted, and wound up with a rhetorical mess....

I might submit to an operation, intending for it to save my life, but knowing that it could also kill me. Just because I knew it could kill me doesn't mean I intended to die. The distinction is not thin at all.

This just in....

Verdict reached in the Edwards case.....jury expected back in court soon.....

I think they will find him guilty. That the jurors took 8+ days after a long trial doesn't phase me -- they have been carefully reviewing the evidence and matching it with the required proofs. If they were going to acquit him, it would have happened sooner.

But we shall see . . . .

Well this is a fiasco....

The jury came to a verdict on count three, and is apparently deadlocked on the other five, but rather than pass a note out to the judge about this, they came back to court...

So now the judge is saying they have to go back and deliberate some more on the other counts and it's unclear whether the verdict on that one count is going to be read...

There are no cameras in the court room, so all the info is coming out delayed.

ETA:

Apparently the jury sent a note to the judge saying "we have reached a verdict" and nobody bothered to check if that meant they had reached a verdict on all the counts...

Now apparently the question is do they read the verdict, and make it final on that count, or not read it and let them keep deliberating on all six counts...

Curioser and curioser...

This trial has been a circus from the get go...

The latest thing before this was allegations of "flirting" between Edwards and one of the alternates...

The "flirting" allegation was retracted by the ABC correspondent who made it. However, the alternates have been a sideshow in and of themselves, apparently.

I heard something about them showing up in color coordinated outfits...

I'm waiting for the made for TV miniseries to come out.

Still no word on whether or not the verdict on this one count is going to become official or not....

I don't believe I've ever seen anything like this before....

If they have not finished deliberating, they have not finished deliberating -- regardless of whether they might be "partially" done. Until they have come to a final conclusion then nothing remains concluded, and even their "decision" on Count Three might be changed by further consideration.

Gob wrote:I'm waiting for the made for TV miniseries to come out.

Didn't you see it? It was called "2008 Democractic Presidential Primary Campaign." It was on all the networks.