Bunny Mellon's Lawyer: Money was Gift, Not Campaign Contribution

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:48:15 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards trial (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bunny Mellon's lawyer, Alexander Forger, put some serious dents in the Government's case today.

"She liked him as an individual, as a person. It wasn't because he was running for president," he testified. "If he wanted to be president of Duke University, she would have supported that...."One of her basic values is loyalty as a friend," he continued.

[More...]

He also testified that he amended Mellon's 2008 tax return to address the payments, which were included as gifts to Huffman, and pay the related gift tax.

"Is there any doubt in your conversation with her that you said this could not be a campaign contribution?” defense lawyer Abbe Lowell asked.

"No doubt," Forger replied.

"Is there any doubt she said it was not a campaign contribution?” Lowell asked.

"No doubt," Forger again replied.

The Government then called Bunny's libarian to show Edwards had asked Bunny for $3 million in 2011, before his indictment. There was a battle over whether the testimony and a letter would be admitted and the judge kept it out.

Edwards isn't home free yet. Here are some of the other witnesses expected this week.

< Malpractice Insur. Co. Cuts Denver Lawyer For Advising Medical Marijuana Businesses | A New AQAP Airplane Plot >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bunny Mellon's Lawyer: Money was Gift, Not Campaign Contribution | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Prosecutor Looks Worse... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by ScottW714 on Mon May 07, 2012 at 03:13:18 PM EST

...by the day. Clearly the only ones who thought the money was a campaign contribution are the ones trying to prove it.

Under what exception to hearsay rule (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:53:46 PM EST

is this testimony admissible? Or did the government not object?

: Well... (none / 0) (#5)
by bmaz on Mon May 07, 2012 at 05:46:05 PM EST

Yes, it is indeed admissible because.....it was admitted. Yeah, that is not real sophisticated, but it is the truth. Not being involved in the case, not in the courtroom, I cannot really do better. but my guess is that all parties, and the court, at some point came to the understanding that Forger was basically the agreed upon stand in for Bunny Mellon. There is a reason the court took this testimony; whatever it was is good enough. It is in.