Motion to Dismiss Charges Against Edwards Is Denied

[alp227]

Source: NYT

The fate of former Senator John Edwards will remain in the hands of a federal jury, despite arguments by his lawyers here on Friday that the government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he broke the law and that all charges should be dropped.

Although defendants often ask for such a ruling, they are rarely granted. Still, Mr. Edwards and his defense team walked into the courtroom here appearing confident in their arguments.

“They are not granted in the usual case, but this is not the usual case,” Abbe D. Lowell, the lead defense lawyer, told Judge Catherine C. Eagles of Federal District Court.

Dissecting each of the six charges Mr. Edwards faces, Mr. Lowell said there was no credible testimony that Mr. Edwards and the people involved in covering up his extramarital affair had formed a criminal conspiracy to break the law.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/us/trial-of-john-edwards-will-proceed-to-jury.html

[former9thward]

1. This is, broadly speaking, a political trial.

No one has ever been criminally prosecuted using the government's theory except Edwards. The government says that Edwards' "family image" and "his public image as a devoted family man" are political mattesr regulated under Title 2, Sections 431-455 of the U.S. Code. Edwards is charged with breaking a "law" that no one knew existed until Edwards was prosecuted. I hope the government gets their ass handed to them.

[MADem]

2. The Hell Hath No Fury characterization of Elizabeth is unhelpful.

The money was used, the defense team argued, to hide the relationship and the resulting child from an increasingly angry and suspicious Elizabeth Edwards, who died of cancer in 2010.


I'd say the woman had a right to be annoyed. Some say she got that cancer from being pumped full of drugs to give JE his "replacement son" to carry on his family name.

[COLGATE4]

3. Not really news. Motion to dismiss is standard

at close of Prosecution's case. Not normally granted, just like here. Has no bearing on outcome of the case.

[fujiyama]

4. John Edwards is a shallow and phony scumbag

but this is an incredibly weak case. It's based off election laws, which I'm not even sure apply anymore especially after the Citizens United ruling.

A lot of people want to see Edwards crucified and I can't stand him myself, but his career and reputation are forever ruined. His relations with his children will be tarnished as well. If he really broke the law, he should indeed face the legal consequences but I'm not convinced the government can really prove the money was contributed to "influence the election" (all very murky and vague at that).