Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
The John Edwards corruption trial the jury still deliberating for a seventh day as speculation grows that they could be deadlocked.
The sticking point may be where jurors come down on a central question in the case.
Did Edwards use nearly a million dollars from wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress from his wife.
Or to conceal the affair from American voters.
A Twitter message never revealed at trial could be key to answering that question.
These -- is Fox News legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor also with -- Jennifer bond -- criminal defense attorney.
There is so let's let's talk about this this August so confusing to me because clearly if you're married you don't want your wife know that you're having an affair but if you're wanting running for president.
You don't want the voters to know either right so in -- where does the line get drawn irony is that where.
Helps the prosecution because you don't want to lying to you don't you don't want her find out so what you would what would you do to keep her from finding out her being mrs.
Edwards you would do anything you would use those campaign funds campaign contributions.
Not gets campaign contributions to make sure she never found out about the affair -- happen.
Let's talk about the tweet in question this is something that of the Daily Beast uncovered in its look at his Twitter account.
On -- -- -- -- I'm sorry may 25 -- 07 he writes.
Thrilled to be an Iowa with Elizabeth and the kids working with Iowans to support our troops.
And bring them home now that suggests.
Jennifer that that his wife was unaware of the fact.
That he was.
Carrying on this affair with a real -- at that same time.
I think it does because if you look at the prosecution's evidence they put on a great deal of evidence about how just rocks.
On his wife was on all of this credible evidence about her ripping off her blouse and she -- -- that this was going on right underneath her nose.
I sincerely doubt that she would have been participating in the campaign.
-- with him that they would have been going on the road together so it's suggest that she did not know which means.
Therefore in in the defense's theory is that he was using the money to keep -- from her and from his family and from public embarrassment but even more reason to cover up to keep the campaign going because if that wasn't -- -- was uncovered and she did find out about it again.
Then the whole campaign with fall apart but doesn't doesn't the existence of the tweet also suggest that he's trying to hide all of this from voters.
Well he's hanging from the public and certainly there are not all look -- that is not we we the public are the voters.
That's sure he's trying to -- public public embarrassment from his wife but -- the day what people have still given him that money even if they knew it was going for -- not in history suggests that they want to have we know Fred -- -- they'd -- -- my but the jury instructions were very very.
On target on this and the judge said it doesn't have to be just for one reason if that was eighty reason to cover it up from the public to keep the tank campaign -- that would be enough.
But at the same time they -- not to show that Edwards had an intense.
To violate campaign finance laws we have he's savvy lawyer.
Eight someone who was very familiar with the election campaign laws true we have someone who consulted.
Other lawyers about is how we act EC who said he committed no wrong doing but so very familiar with campaign finance laws I would say right there you makes the point for the prosecution which is that he should have known what -- too was doing was wrong.
Commission doesn't eat up anything not knocking on the agency that he's responsible for administering and enforcing the laws doesn't believe he did anything so how police say that's not relevant to -- criminal child accidentally nobody was admitted into evidence that was a memory and and that was admitted into evidence is that's said exactly that.
All right so you two are experienced jury watchers I've covered probably 27 big trials in my career and I've probably get has been -- -- I've done well yeah but I know that I probably -- Wrong on the jury decision in 35 of the 27.
The Pittman because I work now I don't know.
That -- I guess but.
That we my question is there's a lot of supposition here that this jury is deadlocked because of their behavior when they're coming into the courtroom you've watched a lot of -- what do you think.
I think the idea of wearing the same clothes and all of that is just lore I mean I think and I think the time that it take of the of the again just so viewers understands the alternate jurors have been wearing sort of identical T -- colors like.
I like I'm nothing at exactly at -- House and tell you know I let -- I remember in the in in that John Peterson case of the Scott Peterson case.
We were all we were all there covering the case in California at everyone who's just -- -- all there'll.
I was happy with the -- I've been -- particularly.
It was a bus drivers birthday they would -- -- hug the verdict was not for days after that you can't take anything from him.
I think that it looks like this jury is deadlocked.
He believed to four person.
Is a financial advisor and I think apple is a very well for the defense because I'm sure the Edwards -- wanted to assemble a jury that had highly educated.
People in the finance world.
That would perhaps look at the technicalities of the campaign finance laws more closely and not be swept up in the emotion.
And the moral.
And the moral issues that are at -- -- with not only because I think -- -- that jury room.
Does not like that's -- is that senate Jon Stewart's.
So that got -- stick to the law they can't have journal the case right it.
We're not gonna look at the law we don't like him -- -- convict me that the law doesn't -- that's that's I give you that.
I do think that we have a fundamental difference between that the legal list in the moralists going on right now.
We'll see what happens again day seven of deliberations on the verdict comes down we'll we'll certainly bring it to you.
-- real Jennifer -- -- thank thank you.
Filter by section