Case Was Doomed and Weak

Story first appeared in Business Week.
Original story contributed by Associated Press.


A jury's refusal to convict a former presidential candidate was less a redemption of the former White House hopeful than a rejection of the Justice Department's boldest attempt to make an example of someone in the name of enforcing campaign finance laws.

Thursday's verdict of not guilty on one count and a mistrial on five others bore out criticism from the earliest stages of the case that it was a reach, that prosecutors went after the ex-U.S. senator without the kind of evidence that justified the charges that he masterminded a scheme to use campaign donations to hide his pregnant mistress from the public and his terminally ill wife.

As noted by nearly every campaign finance lawyer who considered the matter, this was a lousy case. All the salacious details prosecutors offered up to prove that the defendant is, indeed, despicable, were not enough to persuade the jury to convict him.

Several jurors said there just wasn't enough evidence. On network talk shows Friday, even jurors who thought he was guilty on at least some counts said the prosecution wasn't able to prove it.

The defendant faced six felony charges involving nearly $1 million provided by two wealthy political donors that was used to help hide the Democrat's mistress as he sought the White House in 2008. He faced a maximum sentence of up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

To convict, prosecutors needed to show not only that the candidate knew about the secret payments, which he denied, but that he knew he was violating federal law by accepting them. But the government was unable to produce any witness who said he knowingly violated the law. Even a former aide testified that the defendant told him he had consulted campaign finance lawyers who assured him the money was legal.

As former trial lawyer, the defendant was so unimpressed with the testimony against him that when the government rested, he turned to a member of his defense team and asked dismissively, "That's their case?"

When it was their turn, his lawyers presented just two days of evidence.

This is a case that should define the difference between a wrong and a crime between a sin and a felony, stated the lead defense attorney. John Edwards has confessed his sins. He will serve a life sentence for those.

Presented with no damning evidence and no obvious victim beyond the public's trust, jurors couldn't see their way to convicting the charismatic ex-candidate. Prosecutors are unlikely to retry the case, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the decision will undergo review in the coming days.

A former federal prosecutor and Raleigh defense attorney who attended the trial, said he thought the prosecutors took their best shot with what was ultimately a very weak case.

They got their best witnesses, their best evidence and the judge ruled in their favor on all major evidentiary issues. In the end, the jury just didn't believe them.

Another former federal prosecutor who watched the case from inside the courtroom, said the jury's verdict was not surprising, considering the government had no smoking gun to prove Edwards guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, he predicted, the defendant won't fare as well in the court of public opinion.

Regardless of the decision, he still is Exhibit A for how we do not want our leaders to behave. This is a huge victory for him, and big burden off his shoulders, but a hollow one given his astounding fall from grace.

From the start, lawyers for the defense had painted the prosecution as politically motivated.

The final decision to prosecute the defendant was made by the current Presidential administration and the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Once highly admired, the section's reputation suffered after a corruption conviction against former U.S. Senator of Alaska was overturned in 2009 after it was found prosecutors knowingly concealed exculpatory evidence and allowed false testimony to be presented at trial.

The case was tried by three prosecutors sent down from Washington and one prosecutor from Raleigh. They presented 14 days of testimony and evidence, with Young their star witness.

An aide once so loyal he falsely claimed paternity of the defendant's baby and helped hide his mistress from the media for nearly a year, he turned against his former boss and testified for the prosecution under an immunity agreement. Though the government's case recounted how the defendant repeatedly lied about his affair to both the American people and his cancer-stricken wife, the defense countered by shredding the aide's credibility on the witness stand and using financial records to show the former aide and his wife kept most of the money at issue in the case, funneling it into the construction of the couple's $1.6 million dream home.

Before the prosecution, no federal candidate had been tried over payments from a third party that flowed to a mistress. The lack of resolution in the case will likely leave candidates and regulators confused about what is and is not a legitimate campaign expense.

The U.S. criminal justice system requires fair notice of what is and is not against the law. Sadly, the Justice Department seems to have forgotten this fundamental American precept. Luckily, the jury remembered.

For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.

For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.

For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.

For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.

For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.

For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.

For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.

For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.

For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.