« Beldar muses on John Edwards' fate while the jury is out | Main | Cruz vs. Dewhurst: Beldar handicaps the runoff »

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Beldar scoops NYT on analysis of Edwards trial

History will reflect that today, during the fourth day of jury deliberations in John Edwards' criminal trial on campaign finance fraud charges, the New York Times finally figured out the most likely key to the John Edwards trial — "a rigorous disagreement between the defense and prosecution in the courtroom over whether the law requires that influencing an election be the sole reason for giving money, as the defense team interprets the law, or only one of the reasons, as the prosecution sees the case."

Let the record also reflect, however, that readers of BeldarBlog were so advised on Thursday, May 17, 2012, before the jury began its deliberations.

Like the first analyst quoted by the Times, I agree that these jury instructions are also likely to be the most promising potential basis for an appeal if the jury convicts Edwards. I'm not yet persuaded, however, that the instructions were defective. To the contrary, on this specific issue I'm quite confident that Judge Eagles' instructions are substantially correct: This is an issue of first impression, with no prior appellate opinions to resolve the issue, but nothing in the language of the statute supports the defense contention regarding "sole reason," and there's no reason for a court to read that extra requirement into the elements of the crimes the statute defines.

Posted by Beldar at 08:54 PM in 2008 Election, Current Affairs, Ethics, Law (2012), Politics (2012) | Permalink


Note: Trackbacks are moderated and do not appear automatically. They're also spam-filtered. Feel free to email me if yours didn't go through. Trackbacks must contain a link to this post. TrackBack URL for this entry:

Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar scoops NYT on analysis of Edwards trial and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) Gregory Koster made the following comment | May 24, 2012 11:12:32 PM | Permalink

Dear Mr. Dyer: I disagree. I think the TIMES, in the shape of its reporters and editors, knew and understood the analysis you gave. But tell their readers and disturb the cocoon of liberal bigotry said readers swim in? Nope, not until absolutely necessary. Then spin the news to make it seem that vindictive prosecutors have it in for Our Johnny (note the ever-reliberal and odious Rick Hazen's spin) and blame the culprit, CITIZENS UNITED, authored by those conservative meanies who are about to overturn Obamacare, the swine. And so the liberal line is toed for another narrative... Truly, without liberal bigotry to the bone, no TIMES reporter, let alone editor, could face any mirror.

I still think this style of prosecution is bad practice. Note well that the TIMES didn't mention a far more noisome case, that of Ted Stevens. The Geo. W. Justice Dept. went after Ted and got him, honesty be damned. For the TIMES, this is good, as Ted was a GOPer. The rest of us must admit that Ted, like Johnny, was an odious hog, now presumably roasting in the warmer climate he so richly earned. But his swinishness wasn't illegal, merely contemptible. And what happened to the scoundrels who framed Ted? They are practicing law today, in disgrace for getting caught, no more. Bah.

I'm with the commenter on the previous thread: tell us more about Ted Cruz

Sincerely yours
Gregory Koster

(2) DRJ made the following comment | May 30, 2012 12:09:16 PM | Permalink

Beldar Blog: Where you can read tomorrow's news today!

(3) Greg Q made the following comment | Jun 1, 2012 2:01:05 PM | Permalink

Looks like the Jury didn't buy the prosecution's case. Good.

He's a sleaze bag. That's not, however, a crime.

The comments to this entry are closed.