John Edwards Trial: Free At Last! Edwards Wins New Life

From Denny:  After nine days of deliberations, the jury found John Edwards not guilty on the central count, count three.  The jury found Edwards not guilty of receiving illegal campaign contributions.

There is no verdict on the other five counts because the 12-person jury could not come to a unanimous decision as is required under federal criminal law.  So, the judge was forced to declare a mistrial.

What was interesting today is how the judge received a note from the jury of the acquittal on one count, though she did not announce which way the verdict went.  Instead, she and the prosecutors insisted that the jury go back and reconsider changing their positions and keep working on all the counts.  Did the judge not like the acquittal on the one count and wanted the jury to change it?

The jury sent a second note about an hour later with the fact they were deadlocked for a unanimous decision on the remaining five counts under consideration.  Read that as a frustrated jury saying, "Screw you, judge, we're done and are going home."

John Edwards Trial: Dirty Judge Seeks Mistrial?

From Denny:  Why would a judge abruptly stop jury deliberations as Judge Catherine Eagles did last week early Friday morning?  Have the U.S. Marshals guarding the jury been passing on information to the federal prosecutors and the judge about which way the jury is leaning for or against Edwards?

With the Political Fix Is In Crowd leaning on the judge and the prosecutors to get guilty verdicts and bury Edwards, are the prosecutors and the judge motivated to declare this trial a mistrial? It would appear they are strongly motivated at this point to save their careers since they are no longer confident they can deliver a conviction.

After three days of jury deliberations, and the particular requests from the jury, especially in regard to the Mellon exhibits and transcript testimony, it would appear the jury smells a rat.  The judge denied the Mellon transcript testimony and ordered the jury to rely upon their memories.  That's odd.  Since when does a judge deny a jury the trial testimony they have just heard?  How is she trying to influence the jury?

John Edwards Trial: Kangaroo Court Seeks To Direct Jury Conviction

John Edwards on the TV show '. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Denny:  Here's just a small snippet of how this Kangaroo Court breaks it down to cover their asses, both the judge's and the jury's should they enjoy convicting this man.

The judge is first baffling the jury with so much contradictory bullshit as to confuse and frustrate them into finding Edwards guilty out of sheer exasperation.  Judge Catherine Eagles basically informs the jury to find a way to hang Edwards and the court will give them cover.

Oh, and did I mention that the government never did specify where said crimes were committed and was not even sure when it was supposed to have happened?  How can you bring a case when you can't even nail down the specifics?  You want to send a man to jail for 30 years without any direct proof of said conspiracy?

What's interesting is just how convoluted is this so-called sham of a 45-page "jury instruction" clearly meant to direct the jury to a guilty verdict: