Switch to Desktop Site

Why the John Edwards prosecution went down in flames

At the outset, the government's election-fraud case against John Edwards appeared open and shut. But vague laws, a shaky star witness, and political overtones all undercut the prosecution.                                            


John Edwards speaks outside a federal courthouse as his daughter Cate Edwards, left, and parents Wallace Edwards, second from right, and Bobbie Edwards, right, look on after the jury's verdict in his trial on charges of campaign corruption in Greensboro, N.C., Thursday, May 31.

Chuck Burton/AP

About these ads

At one point, the government’s case against John Edwards seemed open and shut: The disgraced former presidential candidate must surely be guilty of something for using a wealthy donor’s six-figure checks to hide a mistress and a love child during the 2008 presidential campaign.

This week, a jury decided just the opposite, concluding in interviews after deadlocking on most of the charges that “the evidence wasn’t there” to convict Mr. Edwards, a former senator and once-favored Democratic presidential candidate, on six counts of election fraud. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on the key charge and deadlocked on the other five.

While the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, which helped prosecute the Edwards case along with a team of North Carolina lawyers, wins far more cases than it loses (it has 161 guilty verdicts since 2009, mostly for bribe-taking), the collapse of the Edwards case hits particularly hard, in part because of the questions now being raised about why the government brought what some legal analysts say was “a lousy case” in the first place.


Page 1 of 4