Hampton Dellinger, an attorney who has been following the John Edwards trial for various media outlets, yesterday provided his assessment of Week 1 and the impact of Andrew Young's testimony. Dellinger says Young made several statements contrary to its theory, which could come back to bite the Government, including:

...Young said Edwards consistently reassured him that the arrangement was legal. The last point is a huge one: If the government was counting on Young to establish that Edwards knew the Baron-Mellon financial support for his mistress ran afoul of federal election laws, his testimony proved a major disappointment.

I think it may not only be a "huge disappointment", but fatal to the Government's case. To prove Edwards is guilty of receiving illegal campaign contributions, it must prove he acted "willfully." In Team Edwards proposed jury instructions, it states the Government must show:

First, that while a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Mr. Edwards knowingly received $25,000 or more from one person in one calendar year;

Second, that this money was a contribution within the meaning of the federal campaign finance laws; and

Third, that Mr. Edwards knowingly and willfully violated the law in receiving these contributions. (my emphasis)

The parties don't disagree on the meaning of "willful." Team Edwards says:

The word “willfully” means that the act was done voluntarily and purposely with the specific intent to violate a known legal duty, that is, with the intent to violate the law or to do something that the law forbids. In other words, the