Monday, May 28, 2012

John Edwards Trial: Dirty Judge Seeks Mistrial?

John Edwards on the TV show '.

From Denny:  Why would a judge abruptly stop jury deliberations as Judge Catherine Eagles did last week early Friday morning?  Have the U.S. Marshals guarding the jury been passing on information to the federal prosecutors and the judge about which way the jury is leaning for or against Edwards?

With the Political Fix Is In Crowd leaning on the judge and the prosecutors to get guilty verdicts and bury Edwards, are the prosecutors and the judge motivated to declare this trial a mistrial? It would appear they are strongly motivated at this point to save their careers since they are no longer confident they can deliver a conviction.

After three days of jury deliberations, and the particular requests from the jury, especially in regard to the Mellon exhibits and transcript testimony, it would appear the jury smells a rat.  The judge denied the Mellon transcript testimony and ordered the jury to rely upon their memories.  That's odd.  Since when does a judge deny a jury the trial testimony they have just heard?  How is she trying to influence the jury?

The jury asked for eight exhibits, again, in regard to the Mellon and Baron testimony and the judge decided to flood the jury with 500 trial exhibits.  Was she attempting to overwhelm them with too much information, hoping to confuse them since they asked for the very exhibits that helped Edwards?

At the beginning of this trial this same judge refused to step down as she had an obvious conflict of interest.  Her husband was a prosecutor in the exact same office as the current prosecutors on this trial and he is friends with them.  Can it be her husband is the go-between for her and the prosecutors which is entirely inappropriate?

Again, this judge refused to call it witness tampering when prosecution witness Andrew Young phoned another three witnesses before trial in order to coordinate all their testimonies.  This judge saw no problem with obvious witness tampering?

Which might explain her lack of avoidance for jury tampering as well, considering the next bizarre acting out in her court.  It was the sudden odd behavior of a female juror flirting overtly with Edwards as she entered the court room during the last few days of testimony - even though she had been present for several weeks without any problems.

This same judge did some other peculiar things.  She allowed the alternate jurors to sit for meals with the deliberating jury which is not accepted procedure.  Why?  Is she trolling for more information?  Is she hoping to influence the jury through one or more of these alternate jurors?

After the initial three-day jury deliberation is when the four alternate jurors began acting downright strange.  The judge allowed the weird behavior in open court, as well as the solidarity colored clothing choices several days in a row.  Two of the deliberating jurors wore the Friday solidarity red along with the alternate jurors.  Just what was discussed in that lunch room anyway?

Did the judge already know about the weird behavior in advance?  Was it suggested by the prosecutors or the judge to one or more alternate jurors?  Were the alternate jurors paid to do so, and, if so, then by whom?  Better yet, was this behavior a way for this judge to set the stage to look like she was forced to declare a mistrial?

And the icing on the cake from this judge was her outrageous, meandering and contradictory 45-page "jury instructions."  That "masterpiece" took over an hour to read to the jury in court.  By the time she was done the jury was mentally on overload and dazed.  Can it get any more obvious how this judge has been attempting to influence the jury against a fair trial for Edwards?

It is possible for the judge to dismiss one alternate juror without affecting this stage of the trial.  However, if she chooses to dismiss one of the original 12 deliberating jurors, and an alternate juror steps in for the job, then the jury deliberations would be forced to push the restart button.

It sure makes a person wonder if this trial is the usual DOJ screw-up.  Remember the 285 counts against a known terrorist and a New York City jury threw out 284 counts?  After that mess, the DOJ no longer allowed civilian juries to try terrorists.  These prosecutors are known for being heavy-handed and excessive in their prosecutions.

This same DOJ also went after Illinois Gov. Blagojevich twice and it looks like it will be their standard procedure in operation to do the same with Edwards.  On Blagojevich's first trial the jury deliberated for 14 days before a mistrial was declared on 23 counts of corruption.  They only found him guilty on one count of making false statements.

So, the DOJ wasted yet more taxpayer money and went after him again.  That jury finally convicted him on 17 corruption counts after 10 days of deliberation.  How much money did they waste on this endeavor that did little to further the public interest?

It appears the prosecutors are nervous about this jury acquitting Edwards and are eager for a do-over in a second trial now that they have figured out what they would change to better make a more believable case.  You know, like not use the salacious aspects which turned off the jury and the public.  Like not use the crook to whom they gave immunity, Andrew Young, the only person to truly benefit financially from this fiasco in the first place.

How much taxpayer money did they waste on this trial and plan to fritter away on yet another second trial to bury Edwards?  Why do we not get any transparency from this White House on just how much money this DOJ wastes on non-violent petty "crimes" better handled in civil court and fined such as this incident with Edwards?

There are far too many troublesome questions about this judge and these prosecutors that this case cries out for many investigations.  Fortunately, there are many underway.

Who above them are pushing this political vendetta of trumped up bogus counts to frame and imprison an innocent man?  And just how many times have these prosecutors and this judge, whether in collusion together or separately, done this?

Perhaps it's time for investigators to take a hard look at the last five or ten years of cases prosecuted by these particular prosecutors to see just how many innocent people are rotting in jail just so they could make a name for themselves?  How much prosecutorial misconduct was as evident in those cases as in this Edwards trial?

Perhaps it's time for the investigators to take a close look at the last five to ten years of cases in Judge Catherine Eagles' court as well?  How many innocent people are rotting in jail from other political vendettas or just the need to make a case to further her career?

Campaign finance law is so convoluted that the experts don't agree on how to nail it down to make any sense of it.  Expecting a layman jury to do so is unrealistic.  So, the only reasonable conclusion remains is that this is a nasty vendetta and they are using taxpayer money to do it.  President Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.  The party's over.

 Subscribe in a reader to A Truth Journal

* Check out Dennys News Politics Comedy Science Arts & Food - a place where all my other 20 blogs link so you can choose from among the latest posts all in one place. A free to read online newspaper from independent journalist blogger Denny Lyon. * 

*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Enhanced by Zemanta