Local Politics

Judge withholds decision on elections experts in Edwards case

Posted December 16, 2011

— A federal judge said Friday that she wants to see how the case against former Democratic presidential contender John Edwards plays out before deciding whether to allow two potential defense witnesses to testify.

Defense lawyers want Scott Thomas and Robert Lenhard, two former commissioners of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about their doubts that Edwards violated campaign finance law when two of his donors provided nearly $1 million to help hide and care for his pregnant mistress, Rielle Hunter, during his 2008 run for the White House.

John Edwards outisde of court Edwards might be able to present expert testimony

Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six felony and misdemeanor charges in the case. His trial is set for Jan. 30.

Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles to prohibit Thomas and Lenhard from offering their opinions on election law, saying the judge is responsible for interpreting the law in the case.

Eagles denied the prosecutors' motion but said she might reconsider during the trial, after hearing their case. She even told defense attorneys that they can't mention any expert testimony to jurors until she decides whether to allow it.

The judge also denied a defense motion seeking more information from prosecutors about conspirators discussed in Edwards' indictment who weren't identified. She told defense attorneys that they could probably determine the identities of the people without any extra help.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • jrfergerson Dec 16, 2011

    well well more of the dog and pony show - look for another alford plea to come in this one too.

  • Gork Dec 16, 2011

    It wasn't campaign money - all you rightwing lunatics are going to be disappointed, you ought to get used to that or change your tactics...

  • wildpig777 Dec 16, 2011

    i d say john edwards is a perfect example of your typical north carolina democrat......

  • censorbait Dec 16, 2011

    The judge will find in Edwards favor because she is one of "them" A liberal democrat.

  • djofraleigh Dec 16, 2011

    Didn't Jesse Jackson use his non-profit's money to pay off his love child's mother and he didn't go to jail. I'd like to see them expose the hypocrite John Edwards but I don't see jail time here for this.

  • djofraleigh Dec 16, 2011

    The woman called it a gift, and paid tax on the money. I don't like Two Americas John, but if he didn't use the money for his campaign, then I don't see the law as broken.

  • Gay Truth Dec 16, 2011

    The whole thing is about Bunny's "Gifts" to Edwards. I believe it was about $900,000 or so. From what I see and understand, we are venturing down a dangerous road here. No matter democrat or republican, this case could have very far reaching affect. If Edwards is found guilty, then from this point forward every political figure in a election campaign will be at risk. A simple dinner could turn into a campaign contribution. It does beg the question of when does a personal gift becomes a campaign contribution? Again if he is convicted, I think both parties are at risk for spending more time in court than doing the jobs they are elected to do.

  • cwood3 Dec 16, 2011

    Clink, clink, clink, clink, the man needs to hear clink, clink, clink.

    Seems to be a bit of a pattern here of Democratic misbehavior!! Meg, Jim, Frank(Ballance), Mike, and now John and maybe Bev. Hummm!!

    Do we see the pattern??? I wonder as I wonder of who we may have missed??

  • somey Dec 16, 2011

    Leave John alone. He duped the liberls, just like they all do. Believe me they are fine with this and could careless. This is the Amreican way.

  • jdupree Dec 16, 2011

    A blind man can see he is Guilty and to say otherwise is blind political partianship. If these two say he did not violate the law, they have no morales or ethics, just like John Edwards!