Jurors say evidence fell short in Edwards' campaign money trial

WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina Fri Jun 1, 2012 10:48am EDT

1 of 3. Former U.S. Senator John Edwards (2nd L) makes a statement with his daughter, Cate Edwards (L), father Wallace Edwards, and mother Bobbie Edwards (R) after the jury reached a verdict at the federal courthouse in Greensboro, North Carolina May 31, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/John Adkisson

Related Topics

WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina (Reuters) - Three jurors who acquitted former U.S. Senator John Edwards on one count of taking illegal campaign money for his failed 2008 presidential bid said on Friday there was not enough evidence to convict him of five related federal charges.

A mistrial was declared on those five counts on Thursday after the 12-member jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, said it was deadlocked on its ninth day of deliberation.

Three of the jurors, including the foreman, said on NBC's "Today" show they believed Edwards was guilty of at least some of the charges brought against him by the government.

Edwards, 58, was accused of masterminding a plot to funnel more than $900,000 from two wealthy supporters to conceal his pregnant mistress from his cancer-stricken wife and voters during his bid to win the Democratic nomination four years ago.

"I think he definitely had some knowledge of the money, where the money was going," said juror Ladonna Foster.

"But he was just smart enough to hide it," said juror Cindy Aquaro, later adding, "The evidence just was not there for us to prove guilt."

Jury foreman David Recchion said the government's case took a hit due to the lack of credibility of its chief witness, ex-campaign aide Andrew Young, who once falsely claimed paternity of the child Edwards had fathered with Rielle Hunter.

The defense showed that Young made inconsistent statements, benefited financially from a tell-all book about Edwards' affair and pocketed more than $1 million from the cover-up.

"I think unfortunately that was probably the key part of the miss for the prosecution," Recchion said of Young's testimony.

The jurors said emotions sometimes ran high as the deliberations dragged out, but they started each day with calmness and tried to put their personal feelings about Edwards' character aside.

"We actually prayed together as a group," Recchion said.

A law enforcement source said late Thursday that Justice Department prosecutors were unlikely to retry Edwards, but no final decision had been made.

Foster said she thought the government should try again, while Aquaro said she did not think the first trial was money well spent.

But juror Recchion said the campaign finance law itself was flawed. "I think there needs to be some change in campaign finance law before you go through this process, and kind of nailing down what really is and what really isn't a campaign contribution."

(Reporting by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Jackie Frank)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (15)
zotdoc wrote:
just another OJ trial

May 31, 2012 9:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
scarr34 wrote:
I still find it odd that the mainstream media can cover this story for so long without ever mentioning that Edwards is a Democrat. If he was a Republican it would be mentioned in every other sentence.

May 31, 2012 9:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Traylor wrote:
The article mentioned twice that he was the 2004 Democratic vice-presidential candidate. Try reading the story next time.

May 31, 2012 10:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.