By Chuck Burton, APJohn Edwards leaves a federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday after his defense team rested.
By Chuck Burton, APJohn Edwards leaves a federal courthouse in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday after his defense team rested.
That decision, after a little more than two days of evidence, signals the defense team's confidence that federal prosecutors have not proved Edwards broke campaign-finance laws as part of the elaborate scheme to cover up the extramarital affair, former federal prosecutors and election-law experts said."Juries like a smoking gun, and there's no smoking gun here," said Steven Friedland, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at North Carolina's Elon University School of Law. He has been in the courtroom for much of the trial.Closing arguments are set to begin Thursday. Jurors could begin deliberations as early as Friday.Federal prosecutors offered nearly three weeks of testimony, arguing Edwards oversaw a conspiracy to use nearly $1 million from two wealthy supporters to hide his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, during the 2008 presidential campaign. The government contends that violated the $4,600 limit on what individuals could donate to a federal candidate in that election.This week, the defense countered with witnesses who steered clear of the lurid details of the sex scandal and instead delved into campaign-finance regulations in an effort to show the money amounted to personal gifts that did not require disclosure as campaign receipts.Among the strongest defense witnesses: Lora Haggard, who oversaw campaign-finance compliance for Edwards' 2008 presidential campaign. She said the money from Edwards' backers — banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Texas lawyer Fred Baron— was never reported to the Federal Election Commission, which oversees the election laws Edwards is accused of violating.Even after Edwards had been charged, Haggard said, FEC auditors did not require the sums to be disclosed as contributions.Defense lawyers also sought to undermine the credibility of Andrew Young, a former Edwards aide who falsely claimed paternity of Hunter's daughter with Edwards. To evade reporters, Young and his wife spent a year in hiding with Hunter and served as a conduit for the Mellon and Baron money.Edwards, a one-term senator from North Carolina, ran for president in 2004 and 2008 and was the Democratic Party's vice-presidential nominee in 2004.James Walsh, a former FBI agent hired by the Edwards defense team to track the cash, estimated the Youngs may have kept half of it, some of which went to build their $1.5 million home near Chapel Hill, N.C.Trial watchers had waited to see whether Edwards, a former trial lawyer known for his rapport with juries, would take the stand. But experts said that would have exposed him to a tough cross-examination about his many public lies on the affair. It also would have proved risky to call Hunter, a former campaign videographer, portrayed during the trial as unpredictable."The defense case was not sexy," Friedland said. "But they don't want sexy; they want, 'not guilty.' "Michael Toner, a former FEC chairman and a prominent Republican election lawyer, said the Department of Justice is wasting taxpayer money with the Edwards prosecution. "As odious as these payments were, there were not, as a legal matter, for the purpose of influencing a federal election," he told USA TODAY. Other legal experts, however, say prosecutors may have established enough of a link between the money from Edwards' backers and his presidential ambitions to raise alarms with jurors. Baron, who died in October 2008, had an official role in Edwards' second presidential bid, serving as the finance chairman.Mellon, who is 101, did not testify. But Bryan Huffman, a North Carolina decorator and Mellon confidant, testified that she wrote the checks solely to support Edwards' presidential ambitions. She was displeased to learn the money had been used to conceal a mistress, he said. "Maybe you should probably pay for your girlfriend yourself," Huffman quoted Mellon as saying.Prosecutors have made "a plausible case that the money was solicited because of the election," said Richard Briffault, an election-law expert at New York's Columbia University. "The jury now has to decide whether he is being prosecuted for being a bad guy or for violating the law, a question that has shadowed this case from the beginning."Edwards faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines if convicted on all six counts of conspiracy and campaign-finance violations.Contributing: The Associated Press
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.