After reaching verdict on only 1 count, judge sends John Edwards jury back for deliberations

John Edwards leaves a federal courthouse during the ninth day of jury deliberations in his trial on charges of campaign corruption in Greensboro, N.C., Thursday, May 31, 2012. Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six counts related to campaign finance violations over nearly $1 million from two wealthy donors used to help hide the Democrat's pregnant mistress as he sought the White House in 2008. / AP Photo/Chuck Burton

Updated: 4:19 p.m. ET

(CBS News) Marking the latest bizarre turn in a case that has been riddled with unusual twists, jurors in the John Edwards trial announced Thursday they had reached a verdict on only one of six campaign finance corruption charges against Edwards. But instead of hearing the verdict, the judge sent the jurors back to continue deliberations on the other five counts.

"I was obviously under the impression you had reached a verdict on all six counts," U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles told the jurors, according to the Associated Press.

After nine days of deliberations, the jury said it had reached a unanimous vote on count three, which charges that Edwards had accepted and received illegal campaign contributions in 2008 from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon.

But it did not seem to have reached a verdict on count two, which charged that Edwards had accepted and received illegal campaign contributions in from Mellon in 2007, nor any of the other charges. 

Stanley Goldman, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says it's not necessarily unusual for a jury to come back with a unanimous verdict only one of many counts after such a long period of deliberation, but that at this point in such a situation, "the general presumption is that they're going to be unable to reach a decision -- that they're hung" on the other five counts. 

But according to Politico, the jury earlier on Thursday sent Eagles a note that said: "We have finished our deliberations and arrived at our decision on counts one through six." What the jury meant by that is unclear, given that it was unanimous on only count three.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and an expert in election law and campaign finance regulation, suggests that the developments are not promising for the prosecution's case.

"To state the very obvious, some of the jurors are convinced that he is guilty and some are not -- and that's not a good sign for the prosecution," Hasen said. "They'll be back for some more deliberations, but if after so many days they've only reached a verdict on one count, it's got to be a sign that there's serious disagreement on the rest of the counts." 

Still, Goldman contends that a conviction on count three -- if that is the verdict the jury reach -- could still be devastating to Edwards.

"Edwards is a lawyer. If he's convicted on one felony count he's probably going to lose his license to practice law relatively soon," Goldman said.

The former North Carolina senator, two-time presidential candidate and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, was indicted in a federal court last June on six counts alleging his complicity in a scheme to cover up an extramarital affair and its resulting pregnancy while he was running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The indictment against Edwards charged that nearly $1 million worth of contributions provided by prominent Edwards donors Rachel "Bunny" Mellon and Fred Baron, which went toward helping former Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter and their child, amounted to campaign contributions because they were made with the purpose of protecting Edwards' presidential candidacy.

The Edwards campaign did not file the more than $900,000 as campaign contributions, and Baron said before his death in 2008 that he had provided the funds on his own, without telling Edwards. The money was not given to Edwards or Hunter directly, but rather funneled through several different people, including a former aide, Andrew Young, who at one point attempted to help Edwards cover up the affair with Hunter by claiming paternity of Hunter's child with Edwards. Young used much of the money to pay for the construction of a $1.6 million home for his family.

Pivotal to the prosecution's case is proving that the funds did qualify as campaign contributions and that Edwards accepted them with the knowledge that in doing so he was breaking the law.

[smartasss1]

Since we are indicting politicians, we should put Bush/Cheney in trial for cooking up the Iraq war.

[smartasss1]

politicians can lie and start wars but they can't screw around.

[Ourdoc1]

The jury at this point should simply tell the judge NO. You cannot hold them in deliberations forever. It is that obvious there is reasonable doubt any conclusion they came to now for any type of conviction would be easily overcome in an appeal. Its a hung jury, learn what that means Judge. But then judges think they are gods, and IMHO all need to be taken down a huge notch.

Want to fix the justice system? Make a law that judges CANNOT be attorneys. The courts will move faster and you would actually have justice instead of the BS the lawyers put on.

[Ourdoc1]

I guess that CBS is just a little slow with the news, right after reading this, this story popped up...

"Updated at 4:34 p.m. ET -- Capping a day of dramatic turnarounds, the jury in the campaign finance trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards found him not guilty on Thursday on one count and said it was deadlocked on the remaining five charges. U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles then declared a mistrial on the remaining charges. It was not immediately clear if prosecutors intend to seek a new trial on those charges."

[TD_Judy]

What I want to know is with all the important issues we have to deal with.
Why is the Govm't wasting OUR MONEY pursuing this BOGUS NON-SINCE?
HIS POLITICAL CAREER IS OVER!
EVERYBODY KNOWS HIM FOR WHAT HE IS. LET THIS DIE!
Focus on something MORE IMPORTANT.

[go2goal]

What a waste ot tax payer money. Edwards is a Democrat in a red neck Republican state so they go after him when several Republicans were a lot more guilty than Edwards over the past several years. Look at wing nut Senator John Enzi and paying off his illegitimate lover with $ 90 K and a government job for her husband....and how his fellow wing nut senator bob corkhum orchestrated the sex payoffs and the cover up. Because they're Republicans they don't get prosecuted.....

Vote all Republicans from office in 2012 and 2014 and let's start cleaning up America!

[baileycccc]

Like I said before, they won't get him. They did prove that he was a slime ball but he walks from these charges.

[john5673]

In America, rich crooks can GO FREE easily with gang of lawyers and witnesses but the poor has to accept the guilt forced on them without any recourse. Their free lawyer is either incompetent or have soft corner with the authority rather than the victim. If the democracy is being openly auctioned on the board to the highest bidders (election fund contributors) what else cannot?

[Drivelphobe001]

Solution: Stay out of trouble or make more money. Money is used to make life better. If you don't have any, then you made some bad decisions and yo get what you can afford. Tres simple! Quit whining, That is the way it is and as it should be. Wealth has privileges and that's why this is the land of opportunity. Everyone has a chance to improve their lot in life, unless you're an Obama supported and are waiting for your Obama money, ie: entitlements.

[royalstar05]

This will get thrown out and they will start over.

[MISSMOO2]

Is this jury on the take or are they just incredibly stupid? It's very, very possible this clown is guilty but I wish this jury would either move it or milk it. I wish they could find him guilty of adultery, betraying his wife who was dying of cancer when he screwed his way into infamy. And I hope he gets SOME jail time - preferably 30 years - and not at the Club Fed but at a real prison. Maybe then his hair won't look so perfect and maybe then he won't be quite so arrogant.

[formerlyluvnut]

I'd go with incredibly stupid. They are, after all, in N Carolina. 'Nuff said.

[RealiteBites]

I'm not surprised the jury's having trouble. He's obviously guilty, but the punishment for the crime is so incredibly steep, people might be hesitant to convict.