Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

John Edwards mistrial: What went wrong for prosecutors?

Details

  • Description

    Lack of evidence to convict former presidential candidate

  • Duration 4:21
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Politics Fair and Balanced

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

And the John Edwards corruption case after the former presidential contender is found not guilty on one of the most serious charges.

They took money from a wealthy heiress to hide his affair so what went wrong from federal prosecutors here.

And are there any chances and they will seek another trial.

Here's -- thankful Edwards on the courthouse steps.

I can say is thank goodness we live in a country that has a kind of system that we have and I think those jurors were.

An exemplar.

For what juries are supposed to do in this country they're very very impressive I don't think God's through with me.

I really believe.

He thinks there's still some good things that -- did.

And -- -- -- -- -- former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney joins us now with some -- so what went.

Wrong for prosecutors are you surprised that.

I'm not surprised at all basically they didn't have enough evidence they needed strong evidence.

They needed really to have the two main witnesses who -- talked about a lot but unable to come into the court one -- witch is dead.

Another one and one has -- exactly so they were unable to bring in the two people who could have said.

This is -- Happens here this is what our agreement was this is why we did it the way we did as far as moving the money to avoid the campaign finance laws.

And John Edwards knew about it but they couldn't bring them -- so without them.

It was a very difficult case they needed it least to have.

If -- had sent emails or some direct statements by a John Edwards of people -- heard saying you know don't do without ways so that we avoid the lawns.

-- make sure you're careful doing it this way.

There wasn't any of that a lot of doubt it it there wasn't all they need is reasonable doubt and they can't convict and that's what happened.

So chances for retrial they were five counts declared a mistrial because it couldn't.

Come to a conclusion I'm very unlikely that they'll have made a retrial in this case right now with prosecutors are going to do is -- going to.

Try to regroup try to figure out what happened here.

And they will try to learn from what the jurors are saying.

Whether they -- is a way there was some that -- want to convict him you know that whether they can put together a strong enough case.

They could change around the way they did -- counts and try to make it stronger if you remember in the Blagojevich case.

They did didn't get.

That they'd had a mistrial on most -- they are too.

And they -- tried it sleek streamlined the case the second time around got a conviction.

They'll try to figure out if they can do that but given that again the two main witnesses are just gotten on -- -- Harlem.

But it does sound like -- not the last we've heard from John Edwards that's right he he made a statement afterward saying that he doesn't think god has done with him.

That there is a very good chance that he may try to do -- Eliot Spitzer didn't come back at some point perhaps and the politics perhaps into TV perhaps in the some other.

Role he seems along the spotlight even at this point at its core this really had to do with campaign finance laws say do you think this verdict is the last straw for campaign finance.

Well if it.

It shows it's a difficult area of the -- a difficult area of the -- through the juries to grasp and try to find a conviction on there.

And it also it pass to be used specifically for what it's charged with here.

You have to pretty strong case he can't bring a murky case.

And try to say it's a violation campaign finance law unless you really have the goods on somebody yes I think -- have to be very cautious of how as to how they use the law.

If it's used appropriately in a strong case if they had those two witnesses come in if it had email showing his involvement.

And his intention.

It would have been a different -- -- so they have to have the right facts to back up.

A case brought an -- typical as we wrap up is it for jurors to separate the emotional side of the case I'm from North Carolina I was working there when all this was going on.

And the seedy side of -- how difficult is it for them to separate that.

It it can it I think date this jury when you look at it I think they were very good it -- sifting man down they they wanted to look at the evidence they won -- look at all the exhibits and they did that.

But they clearly.

He emailed it some of them says they won't have liked to have connected and they wanted to convict him because he is such a despicable character -- on the things he's done you know we have to -- -- it thank you so much for your insight we appreciate it we'll see if there's another child that's right thank you.

Load More