John Edwards Trial: Defense Team Asking Judge To Dismiss Charges

By MICHAEL BIESECKER, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Defense lawyers for John Edwards will ask a judge Friday to dismiss corruption charges against their client, arguing prosecutors failed to prove the former presidential candidate intentionally violated the law.

Such motions are routine in criminal trials and are very rarely successful. But after 14 days of testimony and evidence presented by prosecutors, legal observers in the North Carolina courtroom said the government's case was weak.

"They have established their case enough to get to a jury, but it has holes in it," said Kieran J. Shanahan, a Raleigh defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor. "He is not charged with being a liar and he is not charged with having a baby out of wedlock. He is charged with breaking campaign finance laws."

Edwards is accused of masterminding a scheme to use nearly $1 million in secret payments from two wealthy donors to help hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

To prove guilt, prosecutors must show that Edwards not only knew about the money used in the cover-up orchestrated by two members of his campaign, which he denies, but also that the former trial lawyer knew he was violating the law.

Prosecutors rested their case Thursday by playing a tape of a 2008 national television interview in which the Democrat repeatedly lied about his extramarital affair with the woman, Rielle Hunter, and denied fathering her baby. Earlier testimony from a parade of former aides and advisors also showed an unappealing side of Edwards, casting him as a liar and lousy husband.

"It is rare the jury gets to see the defendant talking about the main issues of a case in a televised videotape, especially with the defendant watching himself talking about the issues in the videotape," said Steven Friedland, a former prosecutor and professor as Elon University School of Law. "The defense must somehow counteract that lasting impression."

If U.S. District Court Judge Catherine C. Eagles doesn't grant the motion to dismiss, the defense will begin presenting its side Monday.

A key question is whether Edwards will take the stand in his own defense.

Before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1998, Edwards made a fortune as a personal injury lawyer renowned for his ability to sway jurors. However, in doing so Edwards would also expose himself to what would likely be a withering cross-examination about his many past lies and personal failings.

The defense could also call Hunter to the stand, which prosecutors declined to do. She could potentially echo Edwards' position that he didn't have direct knowledge of the secret effort to care for her and keep her out of the public eye.

However, Friedland said he'd be surprised to see the mistress take the stand.

"She will simply call more attention to the lies surrounding her affair and pregnancy," he said.

___

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[proud black man]

08:22 PM on 05/11/2012

still trying to figure where the judge saw enough evidence to go to trial, I mean i felt like all the winesses so far testified more like defense witnesses
example:
Shortly thereafter, she began writing checks to Mr. Huffman that were labeled for furniture purchases, he said. Mr. Huffman then signed them and sent them to Mr. Young, he told the court

hey edwards campaign was aptly named " FURNITURE PURCHASE "

[treadway123]

12:41 PM on 05/11/2012

Untell I see congress prosecuted for in side trading to make them Rich men. See Bush/Channey prosecuted for War Crimes----I have no interest in this prosecution!

[Rkymtnmary]

01:33 PM on 05/11/2012

Nice to see a thinker on this board.

[wzntmethistime]

02:46 PM on 05/11/2012

Really? do you even consider thinking things through logically? reality is, you have no interest because he is a Democrat. period! war crimes? hahahha.. you must be around 20..and still an idealist. Study ww1 and two.. study vietnam, Korea..war is war.

[treadway123]

03:01 PM on 05/11/2012

I simply don't care what happens to Edwards! It is not against the law to have an affair an it is non of my business. I am glad he was outed, period! I happen to not think he broke the law an I find Torture some thing that should COME FIRST over an sexual Affair! I also think every congressman who got Rich in Congress should be investigated. Care less rather your a Dem or a Repub.

[Gigantorman]

03:14 PM on 05/11/2012

This kid doesn't even vote. He's smoking while he's writing/fantasizing. Pay no attention.

[duey35]

12:40 PM on 05/11/2012

I hear Edwards said he didn't know he was breaking the law by using his contributions to hide his mistress. All I have to say, and have been told this to me, is, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[proud black man]

08:27 PM on 05/11/2012

THE QUESTION IS NOT WEATHER HE KNEW BUT IF HE DID BREAK ANY CAMPAIGN LAW. I SAY NOTHING I HAVE READ OR HEARD , SUGGEST THAT THE MONEY WAS FOR CAMPAIGN FUNDS , THE OTHER BIG DONOR , WAS THE ONE DOING THE HIDING, COME ON , AND YOU CLAIM THERE IS JUSTICE WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU SERVE ON JURIES

[hopewlguy]

12:28 PM on 05/11/2012

this is not unusual at all. doesn't anyone watch perry mason repeats. there is usually a motion to dismiss by the defendant's lawyer after the prosecution finishes it's case.
did anyone who works for huffington go to high school, let alone college?

[GL3]

12:26 PM on 05/11/2012

typical Democrate

[hopewlguy]

12:29 PM on 05/11/2012

yeah, even wuith an e on him. not the mitt the abuser isn't fantastic, too.

[patient i am]

12:51 PM on 05/11/2012

and the newtster is a typical republican family man. two mistresses, three wives.

[delmail333]

12:23 PM on 05/11/2012

And the Tramp that had the Baby walks free ( at a cost of a million bucks )

[ConservativeAmongWolves]

12:05 PM on 05/11/2012

I thought the aides wife testified that she talked DIRECTLY with Edwards about the money and that he said "he had talked with attorneys and that it was legal."

Sounds he knew about the money....it's purpose ...and said it was all legal.

I wonder if he paid taxes on it? Or the aide?

[hopewlguy]

12:30 PM on 05/11/2012

those words were spoken almost 2 years after the event. News TV doesn't tell us that, only the NYtimes~

[ConservativeAmongWolves]

02:05 PM on 05/13/2012

My recollection is that she asked him DURING the time the money was about to be received or during the time it was.

[danrothesq]

12:51 PM on 05/11/2012

Gifts are not taxable.

[eweb544468]

01:22 PM on 05/11/2012

to a certain point.

[wzntmethistime]

02:48 PM on 05/11/2012

only up to I think 13k

[Chipper Jones]

11:59 AM on 05/11/2012

A typical Democratic crook...apply the rules to everyone else but think thinks he should be immune...fry the man

[jayuucee]

12:16 PM on 05/11/2012

Republicans are MUCH bigger crooks but I guess you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided it is. Have a good day.....you teabagger.

[hopewlguy]

12:30 PM on 05/11/2012

Republicans will bring this country down. If they're not too busy lining their pockets.

[bwyou812]

02:15 PM on 05/11/2012

AGREE!!

[bwyou812]

02:16 PM on 05/11/2012

Is that what FOX NEWS taught you!

[wzntmethistime]

02:54 PM on 05/11/2012

HAHAHAHA...all you leftist..typical answer, who taught you what you know? Current TV? oh wait..I know...John stewart..no...maybe it was bill mahre..

[Mike Edelman]

11:58 AM on 05/11/2012

no doubt edwards is a horrible person...but how did he violate campaign finance
laws..the money was used to hide a love child..it may have aided in that it saved him
the embarassment of having that revealed but in traditional terms of campaign finance
it was not a campaign expenditure or receipt even if those giving the money thought
they were giving it to the campaign...they should have charged edwards and his friends
with larcenty by a trick or extortion

[eweb544468]

01:24 PM on 05/11/2012

"Love Child?".

[JaneTheHuntress]

05:07 PM on 05/11/2012

In a bit under or over a year near one million was spent on Hunter. Think about it, in a year or so's time this woman cost the man nearly one million dollars? Someone is not playing with a full deck here, money seemed to be just thrown out the window. Since when does a pregnant mistress cost any sane man one million dollars? Did this money go for fueling the plane?

[Mike Edelman]

05:54 PM on 05/11/2012

the money went for lots of things planes food and housing...that's not the point
non of that is a legitimate campaign expenditure..she was not on the campaign
payroll she was his mistriss..he may have benefited from the fact that he kept
the secret secret but the issue is whether that violates the federal campaign finance
laws...

[yeti7]

11:56 AM on 05/11/2012

This is the man who could have been President. Wow .

[hopewlguy]

12:31 PM on 05/11/2012

hot times in the white house. yipeeee!!!

[patient i am]

12:32 PM on 05/11/2012

and then i think of herman cain. icky poooo

[yeti7]

04:49 PM on 05/11/2012

you just don't want an authentic black man as president

[proud black man]

08:36 PM on 05/11/2012

how bout John " I dont want no cripple wife " McCain , and Newt" the fruit" Grinch

[lizandrsn]

11:51 AM on 05/11/2012

John Edwards is nothing but the human equivalent of Kaa, the snake in The Jungle Book. He draws you in with his charm, then wraps you tightly before devouring his prey.

Don't look in his eyes!

[hopewlguy]

12:31 PM on 05/11/2012

liz, you're wonderful!! I'd still slow dance with him but i'd keep my fingers in the air.

[susangale]

11:50 AM on 05/11/2012

a "lousy" husband is one who doesn't take out the garbage, Edwards is a "lousy" human being.

[ckdogs]

11:49 AM on 05/11/2012

I'm not a lawyer - but I think the judge should dismiss. Edwards is guilty of many things, but not what he's charged with. The money clearly went to hide his mistress, and was not a campaign contribution. The donors knew what it was for, and were okay with it; no one was defrauded. I'm sure plenty of other polititicians have had donors spend money to cover embarrassing stuff. Not sure why he was singled out. That having been said, he'll have to spend a lot of time in Haiti doing penance, but that's not the business of the court.

[Rkymtnmary]

01:38 PM on 05/11/2012

A voice of reason.

[happyone6470]

11:43 AM on 05/11/2012

Bunny Mellon's attorney testified monday that Mellon was told Edwards needed money for an unspecified personal need and the money she gave him was never intended as a campaign contribution . I wonder if the jury will believe that .

[hopewlguy]

12:32 PM on 05/11/2012

it's true, america was there, oh, not all of america, just the media

[proud black man]

08:39 PM on 05/11/2012

Mr. Huffman said he did not work for Ms. Mellon or keep any money for himself. He did not worry about the odd arrangement, he said, because Mr. Young assured him “it’s out of the realm of campaign money” and was legal

I rest my case , that judge should be disbarred

[Dandy12]

11:33 AM on 05/11/2012

I believe the Edward's team has a point. It's not important what anyone thinks of John Edwards at this point.

[patient i am]

12:33 PM on 05/11/2012

actually it is. if you lie, lie, lie consistently why should a jury think you are telling the truth now.

[Dandy12]

01:11 PM on 05/11/2012

It's a court of law with jury instructions. It all depends upon proving the if and when Edwards knew about the specific designations/conditions of these funds.  It's not a litmus test for honesty in general.  Closer to home (mine) and more profound, Casey Anthony is still guilty.  Now that was a sham.