John Edwards Jury Resumes Deliberation for 7th Day

May 29, 2012

ABC News on May 29, 2012 released the following:

Associated Press

“The jury in the John Edwards campaign corruption trial is deliberating for a seventh day after a judge gave the panel a stern warning not to talk about the case over the weekend.

The jurors reconvened Tuesday morning. The judge met in a closed courtroom Friday with attorneys to talk about a problem with a juror, but she did not elaborate.

The judge again met with the attorneys behind closed doors Tuesday, but their discussions were not made public.

Some of the alternate jurors wore matching shirts last week, and one of them was said to be flirting with Edwards.

Edwards faces six charges involving nearly $1 million provided by two wealthy donors to help hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the White House.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


John Edwards trial: Alternate jurors — all in red — are talk of the courtroom

May 25, 2012

The Washington Post on May 25, 2012 released the following:

“By Manuel Roig-Franzia,

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Something exceedingly strange is happening at the John Edwards trial: all four alternate jurors dressed in red shirts Friday. They each wore bright yellow the day before.

Coincidence? Few here think so.

The demeanor of the alternate jurors and their behavior has become the talk of the courthouse. The alternates enter the courtroom each day giggling among themselves. One of the alternates, an attractive young woman, has been spotted smiling at Edwards and flipping her hair in what seems to some to be a flirtatious manner. On Friday, she wore a revealing red top with a single strap and an exposed right shoulder.

Her actions have not gone unnoticed by courtroom observers, some of whom have chatted about her in increasingly anxious tones during the long stretches of down time while the jury, now in its sixth day of deliberations, meets behind closed doors to decide whether Edwards should be convicted on six campaign finance and conspiracy charges.

The case centers on nearly $1 million in payments from the heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and the wealthy lawyer Fred Baron that prosecutors say was used to cover up Edwards’s affair with videographer Rielle Hunter and the child he fathered with her.

The alternate jurors play a supporting role in this drama. They watched the testimony, but will not vote on the verdict unless one of the 12 members of the main jury is removed. Two members of the jury also wore red tops on Friday. At times during breaks in deliberations, some jurors have gestured toward alternates, who sit at the opposite end of a small federal courtroom here that is packed each day with reporters awaiting a verdict.

The sight of all four alternates in red drew titters from an audience that had already noted that Edwards had ended his streak of wearing a green tie to court for four straight days. NBC’s Lisa Meyer asked Edwards whether he was wearing his lucky tie on Thursday, and he responded with a smile, “I’m not saying’.”

The color he chose on Friday? You guessed it: red.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Jury to reconvene in ex-Senator Edwards’ federal trial

May 21, 2012

Chicago Tribune on May 21, 2012 released the following:

“Colleen Jenkins
Reuters

GREENSBORO, North Carolina (Reuters) – Jurors were set to resume deliberations on Monday in the federal campaign finance case against former U.S. Senator John Edwards, who is accused of using campaign funds to hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the presidency.

A jury of eight men and four women in Greensboro, North Carolina, considered the case for about 5 1/2 hours on Friday before breaking for the weekend.

They must reach a unanimous verdict to convict Edwards, a two-time presidential candidate and the Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee, on any of the six felony counts he faces.

Jurors have nearly four weeks of testimony to weigh as they decide whether Edwards, 58, coordinated a coverup aimed at keeping voters from learning of his extramarital affair while he sought the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

Prosecutors said the scheme resulted in more than $900,000 from two supporters to be secretly funneled to Edwards’ mistress, Rielle Hunter, and his aide, Andrew Young, who during the campaign falsely declared paternity of the baby Edwards fathered.

The Federal Election Campaign Act states that excess contributions are illegal if they are made for the purpose of influencing an election for federal office.

Edwards’ attorneys acknowledged that the former senator from North Carolina knew about the $2,300 limit on contributions from individuals.

But they argued that the payments from heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and trial lawyer Fred Baron were private gifts – not political contributions – made to support Hunter and to prevent Edwards’cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, from learning he had fathered a child with his mistress.

The charges against John Edwards include conspiring to solicit the money, receiving more than the $2,300 allowed from any one donor, and failing to report the payments as contributions.

Each count carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


John Edwards Defense Relies on Definition of ‘The’

May 14, 2012

ABC News on May 14, 2012 released the following:

By JAMES HILL and BETH LOYD

“Not since Bill Clinton challenged the definition of “is” has so much hinged on a very short word.

John Edwards appears to basing much of his defense, which begins today in a North Carolina courtroom, on the legal interpretation of the word “the.”

Edwards has listened to three weeks of testimony meant to prove that he violated federal campaign finance laws by using nearly $1million in donations to hide his mistress Rielle Hunter and her pregnancy during his bid for the 2008 presidential election and in the months after he dropped out — but was still angling to be vice president or attorney general.

If convicted Edwards could be sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The statute governing illegal receipt of campaign contributions “means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money… for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”

The words “the purpose” suggests that in order for a conviction, the sole reason for the money would have to be to finance a presidential campaign.

Edwards’ legal team has argued he did not know it might be illegal, did not intend to break the law and that his main reason for hiding Hunter was to keep her secret from his wife, Elizabeth, who was dying of breast cancer.

Prosecutors, however, are arguing the law should be interpreted to mean “a purpose,” meaning use of the donations does not have to be solely for a political campaign.

“It is sufficient under the law if you find that the gift, purchase, or payment was made for, among other purposes, the purpose of influencing any election for federal office,” prosecutors argued in court filings last week.

Edwards’ lawyer Abbe Lowell has argued that prosecutors are asking the jury to “invent a new crime” with its interpretation of the law.

Edwards’ legal team will begin its defense today, which is expected to last a week. He may have a lot to overcome. Prosecutors concluded their case last week by showing an interview Edwards gave to ABC News’ “Nightline” program in which he clearly lied several times, including denying that he had fathered Hunter’s baby.

Judge Catherine Eagles also rejected a motion by Edwards’ team to dismiss the charges against him.

The defense is expected to go after the prosecution’s key witness Andrew Young, a former Edwards’ aide who helped hide Hunter, going on the road with her to keep her away from the press, even claiming paternity for his boss.

Edwards defense has argued that much of the money was solicited by Young and he used the scandal to enrich himself.

Among Edwards’ witnesses will likely be his daughter Cate, who has been his most visible supporter throughout the trial.

Hunter is on Edwards’ list of witnesses, but it’s not clear whether she will be called. Her presence in the courtroom could be volatile.

It’s not yet known whether Edwards will take the stand in his own defense.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Prosecution Rests After Presenting Video of Edwards’s Lies About His Affair

May 11, 2012

The New York Times on May 10, 2012 released the following:

“By KIM SEVERSON

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Prosecutors rested their case against former Senator John Edwards on Thursday, offering as their last piece of evidence a national television interview he did in 2008 in which he denied much about the affair that ultimately brought him to the federal courtroom here.

Watching Mr. Edwards watch himself lie was the most electric moment yet in a three-week trial that has been relatively light on federal campaign law and heavy on dramatic narrative.

Mr. Edwards, 58, faces six counts of conspiracy and violating campaign laws. The Department of Justice contends he illegally used at least $925,000 in money from two wealthy donors to hide his mistress and their child as he pursued the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The actual amount spent keeping the affair from his family and the public is well over a million dollars, but the government is focusing only on money spent until he suspended his campaign at the end of January 2008.

The affair had begun a couple of years earlier, but remained largely a rumor. The National Enquirer ran an article in October 2007 about the affair that was ignored by other news media. But when it published a photograph of Mr. Edwards holding his baby in a Beverly Hills hotel, the story took on a new life.

Instead of admitting it, Mr. Edwards allowed an aide to claim paternity. The aide, Andrew Young, then took his own family and Mr. Edwards’s pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, on the run, eventually ending up renting a mansion for about $20,000 a month in Santa Barbara, Calif. The baby, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born in February 2008, a month after Mr. Edwards suspended his run for the presidency. As the race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama progressed, Mr. Edwards still held out hope for a position as attorney general or eventually as a Supreme Court justice.

By that August, with the Democratic National Convention weeks away, he thought he could make the story go away by confessing to a brief affair but deny that the baby, at that point 6 months old, was his.

So he asked Jennifer Palmieri, his former press secretary and a close friend of his wife, Elizabeth, to help arrange an interview on the ABC News program “Nightline” with the reporter Bob Woodruff, who has attended the trial nearly every day.

Mr. Edwards was going to use a “thread the needle” strategy, said Ms. Palmieri, who is now a deputy director of communications for the White House.

That is, he would confess to a brief affair and claim that it was over and that he and his wife had reconciled. He would deny both that the baby was his and that he arranged to pay to support Ms. Hunter.

Ms. Palmieri advised him against it. She had come to believe the baby was his.

“I told him I didn’t think he should do an interview if he was going to lie,” she told the court. “He didn’t need any more press attention at this point.”

She knew his political career was essentially over, she testified Wednesday.“He was deluded for thinking otherwise,” she said.

Still, he went ahead with the interview. It played for nearly 20 minutes on screens around the courtroom, including one on the defense table directly in front of him.

Mr. Edwards watched a younger, happier-looking version of himself sitting forward in a chair in his Chapel Hill home, taking question after question.

Was the affair over? “Oh, yes. It’s been over for a long time.” Is that your baby? “That is absolutely not true.”

Two weeks earlier, he had been photographed at the Beverly Hills Hilton holding Quinn. But in the interview, he claimed no knowledge of who the baby was or where the photo had come from.

The short affair happened when his wife’s cancer was in remission, he said, and was the result of narcissism and the conflicts that come from rising so high after growing up as a small-town boy with humble roots.

Mr. Edwards, whose wife died in 2010, watched himself assert repeatedly that he never spent money supporting his former mistress and her child.

“If the allegation is that somehow I participated in the payment of money, that is a lie,” he said. He said he would take a paternity test if asked.

“One of the purposes of this interview, Bob, is to tell the truth,” he said.

As the video ran, Mr. Edwards’s reaction was muted. He closed his eyes now and again, and sometimes touched his fingertips to his lips. When it was over and court was adjourned, his lawyer clapped him on the shoulder. Mr. Edwards laughed.

He and his defense team appear confident that he will not be convicted, and that he will escape up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

At the close of court on Wednesday, with the prosecution nearing the end of its case, Mr. Edwards turned to the head of his defense team, Abbe Lowell, and said, “This is their case?”

On Friday, his lawyers will ask Judge Catherine C. Eagles to dismiss the charges, claiming the government has not presented a strong enough case against him to go to the jury.

If she denies their motion, Mr. Edwards’s defense will begin Monday. Whether Mr. Edwards will testify in his own defense remains unclear.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Federal Prosecutors won’t call Rielle Hunter to testify at John Edwards’ Federal Criminal Trial

May 10, 2012

Boston Herald on May 10, 2012 released the following:

“Prosecutors won’t call Rielle Hunter to testify at John Edwards trial

By Anne Blythe and Martha Quillin / McClatchy Newspapers

GREENSBORO, N.C. — Prosecutors trying John Edwards have called a full cast of witnesses over the past three weeks to talk about $400 haircuts, fancy houses, posh estates, the whirlwind details in a presidential run, back-biting, betrayal and an extramarital affair that sent a one-time political star plummeting to the depths of a criminal trial.

On Wednesday, the day before prosecutors plan to wrap up their evidence, the one witness from the Federal Elections Commission, Patricia Young, an administrator in the Public Disclosure Division, was on the witness stand for not much more than 30 minutes. But prosecutors won’t be calling the woman who set the whole, sordid matter into motion — Edwards’ former mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Prosecutors told Judge Catherine Eagles late Wednesday that they still were on schedule to wrap up their side of the case on Thursday, and Hunter, the woman with whom Edwards had an extramarital affair and a child, was not one of the witnesses they intend to call.

Legal experts said prosecutors apparently will skip Hunter because she didn’t have direct knowledge of the money involved in hiding her and they can’t be certain of what she might say on the stand.

The Edwards case could test the sweep of campaign finance law.

When the government rests, the stage will be set for the first key ruling in the trial. Defense lawyers will likely ask Eagles, who will by then have heard the best evidence against Edwards, to dismiss the case in whole or in part. It is a standard maneuver in a criminal trial, but it may have a greater chance in this case in which the applicability of the law is also at issue.

Defense lawyers have argued that the campaign laws Edwards allegedly broke don’t apply to funds spent for personal reasons, such as the hiding of a mistress. Jurors will be asked to decide not only whether the expenses provided by two wealthy supporters should have been classified as campaign expenses, but whether there was any criminal intent by Edwards in not reporting that on public disclosure forms.

Prosecutors plan to call several federal agents on Thursday, but their case could go to a jury which will have to rule on the intent of key actors in a case that weighs heavily on intent without hearing from two, and possibly three, of the people at the center of the charges.

Prosecutors called the lawyer, librarian, farm manager and grandson of Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, the Virginia philanthropist who issued $725,000 in checks to help Edwards. But Mellon, just thee months shy of her 102nd birthday, was not called to testify.

Fred Baron, the wealthy Texas lawyer, who, prosecutors contend, provided several hundred thousand more dollars toward the effort to hide a pregnant Hunter from the media, died in October 2008. No one other than Edwards’ former aide and his wife, Andrew and Cheri Young, who deposited more than two-thirds of the money in their private bank account, have offered any testimony about Baron’s intent.

And Edwards, a trial lawyer who had much success with juries when he was in the courtroom, might or might not take the stand in his defense.

As prosecutors push toward the close of their case the defense team has offered themes of its own in their cross-examination of witnesses.

They contend that that most of the money prosecutors contend was coverup money say was used to hide Edwards’ pregnant mistress from the public to keep his campaign alive went to Andrew and Cheri the Youngs, key witnesses for the prosecution.

They continue to attack the character and motives of Andrew Young, making the trial as much Edwards versus Young as the government versus Edwards.

And Wednesday, they continued to push with their theory that Young was working closely with the FBI to ensure that an indictment was issued against Edwards. The defense contends he was in close contact with agent Charles Stuber, or “Chuck” as they’ve begun to call him.

The trial so far has offered political theater, psychological drama and wrought emotion from some of the witnesses.

Also on Wednesday, Jennifer Palmieri, a former Edwards’ campaign spokeswoman and friend of Elizabeth Edwards, became emotional while describing her relationship with the former Democratic presidential hopeful’s cancer-stricken wife and her last days.

“She was not able to speak at this stage,” said Palmieri, who now works for the Obama administration.

Shortly before she died, Elizabeth Edwards told Palmieri that she did not want to die alone, that when the time came, “there would not be a man around to love her.”

Palmieri said she would be there and was. So was John Edwards.

As Palmieri testified, Edwards, rubbed his eyes and pressed his forehead against his hand.

Palmieri was under cross-examination by defense lawyer Abbe Lowell after testifying for prosecutors about a rancorous October 2007 Iowa hotel meeting in which Elizabeth Edwards was angry at Baron and his wife Lisa Blue.

The Texas couple had taken Hunter on a shopping trip in California and Elizabeth Edwards was livid that they were continuing to stay in touch with Hunter. keep up with a woman with whom her husband had an extramarital affair. Edwards had told his wife a while back the affair was over and Elizabeth Edwards could not fathom why Baron and Blue were still in communication with her.

“Lisa kept saying, ’You’ve got to hold your friends close and your enemies even closer,’” Palmieri testified.

Palmieri, who has been involved with politics her entire career, offered testimony that played to contentions by prosecutors that Edwards built his campaign on a family-man image and that news of an affair could damage his chances. Therefore, the government argues, efforts to shield his family-man image were in fact campaign expenses.

Palmieri remembered the first National Enquirer story that mentioned the possibility of Edwards being involved in an extramarital affair.

It was months before the publication broke the news about Hunter being pregnant.

Palmieri talked about the efforts to keep the affair story from “jumping to the mainstream media.”

As she tried to help tamp down the story of the affair, Palmieri turned to Edwards and said: “If it’s true, don’t think you’re going to survive this.”

When pushed by prosecutor David Harbach about why she told Edwards that, Palmieri said: “A big part of his appeal was his family and his relationship with Elizabeth.”

Palmieri took the stand after speechwriter Wendy Button finished her testimony.

Button testified on Tuesday that Edwards told her in 2009 that he was aware all along that Baron had provided support to Hunter.

But on cross-examination, defense lawyer Abbe Lowell pointed out that Edwards had not specifically elaborated on what that meant.

Edwards and Button at the time were talking about Quinn, the daughter he had with Hunter. He was upset and very emotional, Button said, that he had lied on an ABC interview nearly 11 months earlier that he was not the father.

Button was helping him prepare a statement that would acknowledge his lie and perhaps clear up other lingering issues.

That statement went through at least 13 renditions, was vetted by lawyers and others, and eventually was not delivered.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.