Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Judge declares mistrial in John Edwards corruption trial

Details

  • Description

    Jury could not reach unanimous decision on 5 counts

  • Duration 4:42
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

It is looking for now that former vice presidential and presidential candidate John Edwards.

Has just avoided what could have been the biggest debacle of his life.

He has been found not guilty of accepting illegal can't -- contributions.

From a key supporter.

-- -- the -- the jury was hung on five other counts.

Up effectively meaning of them from the defense's point of view we might as well -- goal was a mistrial.

Now we're told that the decision of the judge has done just that John of -- area North Carolina update its but it.

Yes certainly -- just minutes ago judge Catherine Eagles declared a mistrial that after she sent the jury.

Back to continue their deliberations.

Losing them to see.

If they could come up with the verdict on the five other counts but they seem deadlocked on -- moments later the -- -- the jury came back.

And instructed the judge informed the judge that they were not going to be able to.

Reached consensus on those five other counts and so they announced their verdict on -- one count they could agree on that was count three.

That John Edwards allegedly.

Accepted illegal campaign donations excessive campaign donations.

From wealthy heiress Rachel bunny Mellon in the year 2008 the jury ruled that -- -- to guilty.

On that particular count but ask for the other five.

They simply could not reach a verdict and after convincing the judge -- sending them back to build deliberate wasn't gonna do any more good.

The judge declared on this trial and so presumably.

Any minute from now.

We're gonna see John Edwards walk out of this courthouse a free man but of course it's a mixed blessing for him because his reputation.

Has already been tarnished his -- it's been publicized and there's no dispute about.

All of the personal things all of the personal things that he committed against his wife.

But apparently according to this jury he did nothing illegal at least they can agree upon that -- I'm Jonathan you know it did there had been some conjecture this was -- on and on 89 days of this and that.

Something was amiss here they couldn't come to agreement -- on.

On a lot of things a lot of matters and it showed confusion among the jurors.

Was that tell tell sign I mean it's easy to say in retrospect but what what are you getting from from the folks don't.

You know this is it difficult for the -- difficult case for the prosecution to prove this was really.

A novel interpretation.

Of campaign finance laws ordinarily when you make a campaign finance donation you give money to the candidate to use -- Advertising or some other direct campaign purpose -- here.

Prosecutors were trying to establish that paying.

Third party.

To -- made a candidates mixed race.

If that benefited the campaign somehow they were arguing that that was a campaign contribution.

The defense was arguing no it is and this is something that any person would be doing.

To hide.

An affair.

From a spouse whether they were running for federal office or not -- so.

Even when you talk to government officials there there was dissent among them these experts that the defense.

Wanted.

To -- -- testify from the FBC.

Believed it did these did not fall within the realm of campaign finance contributions but the Justice Department obvious we believe that they weren't so.

Even when you talk to the experts the government officials.

They were disagreeing over wet.

Whether this met the definition of campaign finance violations and so when you look at this jury composed of about twelve -- people.

Whoever varying degrees of knowledge.

Thought campaign finance law it any.

It was going to be all the harder for them to come up with some sort of unanimous decision on -- -- and end -- I take -- what you were saying before that John Edwards is still in -- he has been using that -- -- to come and go all the time -- up.

Is it -- assume that he is gonna talk as you said to reporters.

Yet I'm not sure he's gonna talk they have microphone stationed in front and the idea being that.

Anyone who wants to talk can come up to that microphone the federal marshals -- that they would instruct.

Not only the participants in the trial meaning AdWords and the various attorneys in the case but -- also inform any jurors who want.

To speak to the media that they can walk up to the microphone and talk of course that's.

No guarantee that anyone is going to talk but all the reporters behind me are -- out here in in hopes that at least some of them well.

Load More