Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire John Edwards jury has a verdict

Not announced yet, next 15 minutes or so.

I think he's guilty.

I can scarcely wait!

I'm on tenterhooks!

No matter the outcome every one knows he is guilty, just like OJ

Hung jury on most counts

Hang 'em high!

Maybe they should take the jury out and actually hang them. This court house would be a good target to try out the New Drones inside the US Border.

Defense now demanding mistrial.

Crap, I saw the news on Fox.

Doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast.

I'm suspecting the jury reached a not guilty verdict on the one they agreed on. From what I can find and recall, count 3 was about money received in 2008, in which he was only a candidate for 1 month. I doubt they will reach a verdict.

The news report I heard said they found him "guilty" on one count, but they didn't say which count, and the judge told 'em to go back and get more verdicts, one way or another.

if'n one believes what one hears in the media, the whole thingy was a farce, no matter what the morals were of the defendant.

I hear not guilty..

Not guilty on one count, mistrial declared on the rest.

What a waste of time and taxpayers money, a fiasco.

i've suspected for a long time there's something not kosher about our political system, now i'm beginning to wonder if there's a flaw in our justice system?

a demo Presidential candidate being prosecuted, and now found not guilty? lawyers, what a mess we have, and yet we have to depend upon them, for a fee of course.

HUH? The clueless are always left to wonder.

The jury applied the law. It was a easy verdict. What surprises me is the fact they didn't acquit on the other 5 counts after finding him not guilty on the one count.

Does this really surprise anyone?

hopefully, in the interest of the public good, and cost-effectinvess, the whole thing will be dropped, and allow everyone go their own way, licking their chops as they go.

we need to get this unfortunate piece of Americana past us, and move on.

Bob, from what I heard on CNN and FOX (channel switching) the case and campaign laws are rather vague. In hindsight, This was probably the proper verdict, but I do wonder why if not guilty on Count 3, they didn't acquit him on more counts.

if his defense is that these were private gifts and not campaign contributions, he would appear to have backed himself into an admission of income tax fraud.

In a criminal case,vague should always equate to reasonable doubt. The prosecution was successful in keeping the Judge from allowing campaign finance experts from testifying and rendering a opinion. The jury had a monumental task,as lay persons,trying to sort it out. They figured out that although what he did was wrong,irresponsible and he's a lowlife,he didn't violate any laws. If the law is vague,clarify it. Edwards got some hush money from his friends rather than the campign funding pool. Who wouldn't if they had the connections?

I despise Edwards but I love the grandeur of laws. The jury meticulously deliberated for what? a couple of weeks? The law prevailed. It's not a dem or repub thing,it's a law thing.

I'll agree the ambiguities of the law need to be clarified and refined.

That seems like a more reasonable approach.

I knew it was a waste of money from the beginning just like Roger Clemons trial.

damn


that makes me want to go rob a Korean liquor store

I ain't holdin my breath.

=========

His legal defense team was probably as astute as you in this regard and he likely paid that tax (if actually required) before he paid his retainer,amended return or not.

The rich dude walks????...no way.

How many rich politicians have you seen walk the past few years? That one isn't going to fly. The prosecution couldn't even obtain a guilty verdict to a conspiracy charge,the easisest no-brainer prosecutorial charge of all to obtain a guilty verdict.

Blame the government on this one,not the despicable personality and ugliness of Edward's character.

it's all pure-ass politics. in NC, they're leaning toward the publicans this time around.

the political incumbents are ready to sacrifice one of their own lowly members to create a posture of "justice." get real. sure he's the 10 million dollar man. but, his constituents aren't going to vote for the Incumbent this time around. bet on it. so they're trying to make him look bad.

at this point, the taxpayers need to demand that the persecution stops. i mean prosecution, sorry.

Heard he was making eyes at a female juror. The silky pony strikes again. He's scum.

Yes sir,he sure is. The jury saw through it though and applied the law,as instructed. Deplore the politics and the players but don't fault the jurors or the system. They worked as they should.

i think it might have been just the opposite? and they were all sent home?

i don't like scum, but i don't want anyone to be bamboozled due to political incumbency.

IF they were, and I'm not stipulating to that, then he is legally home free.

If they were NOT, then the IRS just got an early Christmas present.

If I couldn't get an organized crime suspect one way, I'd get 'em with any legal tool I could.

There's more than one way to stretch a hide on a wall...

Ed

That was not a verdict . . . that was kicking the can down the road, or punting, or whatever you want to call it . . . anything BUT a verdict. In any event, the snake gets to slither off into the sunset . . .

The prosecution will try to quietly slink away and try to put this mess behind them

the wholey thingy troubles me to no end. not about this case in particular, but about all cases in general.

lawyers cost money, whether paid for by tax-payers who work for the gov't, or for the private attorneys paid for by the defendants. money is money. but who pays?

i'd like to see a set amount of "money" set aside for a said game. then the prosecutors get half and the defendants get half. the resources are set to attack and defend. and that's it. fair is fair.

but, that's not how it works, is it? as a lowly commoner, how can i afford to defend against the bottomless budget of the prosecution? they can break me, and i go to jail. while they still do lunch and drive mercedes.

there's a flaw in the slaw and we all know it.

we recognize the system is unfair.

It's Bushes fault....

It is Bush's fault, if he wouldn't have beaten Kerry/Edwards in the election, John could have afforded to support his mistress, like Clinton did, and we would have gotten some more great lines like 'It depends on what your defination of is, is."

But isn't this another issue he could face charges for?

LOL that wasn't a verdict it was a tragedy.

"jury of your peers"

lucky John that his "peers" are uneducated idiots unable to understand and interpret the law and jury instructions. this is becoming more common in our legal system.

Clean bill of health! Obama/Edwards '12

But not a jury of Peeers.

Naw.. Ya THINK??

And since it's a dem, there won't be a new trial, of course.. He gets off scott-free...

Was the prosecution team the same bunch that tried OJ??

Fiasco = to the max..

If he was with the GOP he'd be swinging at the end of a rope doing an air dance.

Things are bad

they will get worse

Snake

That's their buddy John and he's in trouble. Do you really think they're going to let him be found guilty? I can picture him having to pay an undisclosed fine if he is retried and is somehow found guilty.