« Seeking advice on (and cites to) thoughtful state Eighth Amendment rulings | Main | NJ prosecutors now say that Ravi should have received five years in webcam spying case »

May 30, 2012

"Jury divided in Edwards corruption trial?"

The title of this post is the headline of this new Fox News report, which gets started this way:

As jury deliberations in the John Edwards trial continue well into their second week, legal analysts are beginning to wonder whether the panel has become deadlocked.

Judge Catherine Eagles extended Wednesday's deliberations by a half-hour and plans to do the same the next day in order to allow jurors to recess early Friday -- to attend high school graduations and other family events.  Jurors have provided Eagles with schedule requests through next week.

Kieran Shanahan, a former federal prosecutor who's been watching the trial, said that could be a signal from dissenting jurors to other members of the panel "that they're resolute in the position and they'll stay as long as necessary."

"Initially, it looked like the jury was just going to walk through each count," Shanahan said. "They asked for every document associated with each count. But we're now in day eight. And I think it suggests there's division as to guilt or innocence among the jurors."

I wonder if all the media awaiting an outcome from the jury have a pool going on the timing or the verdict.  Gosh knows I am ready for an outcome, and I have not had to hang around a federal courthouse for the last few weeks. 

I am still predicting a split verdict, but every day that goes by suggests that a hung jury may be in the cards.  Is it too early to speculate as to whether the feds would try to retry Edwards if no verdict is reached?

May 30, 2012 at 03:43 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Jury divided in Edwards corruption trial?":


Isn't this prosecution a colossal waste of taxpayer money? All mainstream politicians lie, cheat, and steal. Edwards is no different.

As in the Roger Clemons case, the feds deserve a hung jury in this case.

The real criminals – those guilty of torture and murder – Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Jay Bybee, are the people who the feds should be targeting.

But, instead, we get this crap from the feds.

Posted by: Calif. Capital Defense Counsel | May 30, 2012 4:15:26 PM

"Edwards is no different."

Baloney. Edwards set a standard of indecency even Nixon couldn't match. It takes a special kind of human being to cheat on your dying wife and deny your own child.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 30, 2012 11:42:55 PM

So he's a dick.

Last time I checked, being a dick is not a federal crime.

Posted by: Calif. Capital Defense Consel | May 31, 2012 12:11:58 AM

Maria Shriver wasn't dying, but didn't Schwarzenegger cheat on her and deny his love child for longer than Edwards did?

Is Bill Otis busily seeking to have a federal grand jury return a cockamamie indictment against Arnold for infidelity and fathering a child out of wedlock? Is that the kind of crap we want our federal tax dollars to be used for?

Posted by: Calif. Capital Defense Consel | May 31, 2012 12:55:31 AM

I'm seriously happy to discover this great site the future of this discussion is getting good and more useful for me. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: GED Testing system | May 31, 2012 8:34:12 AM


"So he's a dick. Last time I checked, being a dick is not a federal crime."

Nice try at changing the subject. What you said was that Edwards is "no different" (your words) from "all" (your word) mainstream politicians who "lie, cheat, and steal."

Only he is different.

Nor is Schwarzenegger "all" politicians. And, except in unusual circumstances, lying, cheating and stealing are not federal crimes.

Are you this careless with language when you write briefs?

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 31, 2012 12:44:23 PM

hmm shame on you bill!

"Nor is Schwarzenegger "all" politicians. And, except in unusual circumstances, lying, cheating and stealing are not federal crimes."

Obviously Lying is or we would not be having all these roger clemens trials for doing same!

oh but wait. I guess it's ONLY legal when done by a govt official! sorry NOT!

Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 1, 2012 10:52:43 AM

Pretty impressed by the variety of attentiveness on this website. You have a ton of amazing information here. I am sure I will check out this blog another time.

Posted by: Shabby Chic Furniture | Mar 29, 2013 8:00:19 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB