Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Thanks for staying with us I'm -- ground and in the factor follow up segment tonight.
Day -- of -- jury deliberations of the John Edwards -- wrapped up today with no verdict.
But jurors did ask to see very specific evidence for extra consideration.
So does the -- action today signal all the they're leaning one way or another.
Joining us now from New York is Jennifer -- -- she's a criminal defense attorney and from Los Angeles Richard Gabriel a jury consultant.
All right let's turn on packed vests and Jennifer let's start with -- -- what's the relevance of that -- asking for these eight exhibits to look at and Indians to point out the specific.
Pieces of evidence that might -- this case one where.
Yes it is seems to me that the jury is looking at what I would call the bunny Mellon state of mind evidence they're looking for hand written letters from -- -- They're looking to find out what she intended this money to be there looking at they wanted to see her estate lawyers testimony.
And the judge has already instructed them that -- -- state of mind her intent is actually relevant.
In -- determination of whether this is a campaign contribution or whether it was nearly a personal donation and we know this is one.
Allen -- one contestant elements that the government is of course and this is campaign contributions.
And of course the defense has said all along no this is personal this was.
Bunny Mellon she was interested in John Edwards at the person she wasn't interest and exercising any influence over this campaign.
So I believe that for the juries had is that right this moment at least on those exhibits.
And Richard let's go to you -- she is obviously them them.
Very very wealthy benefactor John Edwards.
How does her state of mind -- a lot of them are confused about -- -- -- her state of mind about the money she gave to Edwards relevant in this case.
I think to a certain extent with the jurors this may be a difference without distinction or distinction without a difference because let's face it I think a lot of jurors lot of the public feels that.
It if it's going to someone personally -- politician's use.
That some of these can't take campaign contributions for personal things reason for things so that's that's a legal distinction and I think what's interesting about this is to find out.
Jurors for the most part they won a look at really.
They take a look at what their own moral conviction is in this case.
And then they will sometimes use the evidence to support it so if they feel this is no big deal this is all just sort of a personal thing funding he's she has a long term.
Relationship with John Edwards.
They may be leaning more toward quitting but if they think look this -- it is running for president.
He's kind of he's breaking the rules here and this is just morally wrong they could be leaning toward conviction.
But let's talk about the fourteen days here both of you can chime in on this the fourteen days of testimony no one testified at Akron and if I'm wrong.
That there was direct knowledge on the part of John Edwards at what it was doing was violating campaign finance laws at at Richard -- -- did speak to that.
We'll write -- and I think that's what the defense is actually need a very good case they've done.
An excellent job in cross examination on the witnesses showing that he really had no specific knowledge of it.
But again I -- I come back to -- say well does he know in general.
That these are all sort of it's it's all sort of a big fund.
That goes to that the campaign and it's for personal use to and I think that's why they're probably going bunny no letters to look at.
What does she think it's four and and that will sort of direct them to what.
-- -- might direct them to John Edwards state of mind.
That Jennifer -- had a maybe you've heard this slush fund this could yeah this is the hot spot right ended.
This money was meant to keep all is quiet.
Put the spot -- on.
Not someone else not John Edwards for this.
-- potential paternity issue and -- even if that jurors think he's a bad guy.
And they don't like the fact that Elizabeth Edwards had breast cancer that's not supposed to go into the air and understanding in this case right.
We we hold our jurors follow and a lot and that they can recognize that it distinction between sins and crimes.
And what's very interesting about this case in one piece of evidence that was so compelling from my perspective.
Is that there was a memo from the Federal Election Commission this is the agency that is responsible for administer and and and and enforcing.
The federal election campaign laws and they determined that.
John Edwards -- not violate any campaign laws now.
If we have twelve jurors come back and say oh no no yes he did what we're saying is that the agency responsible.
Understand you told us -- well I don't know better.
But -- we -- at the end of the day they still the show the John Edwards knew he was committing a crime and they just didn't do it.
My I and my perspective they didn't do it either but we'll -- at a.
Filter by section