John Edwards jury reaches verdict on one of six counts

GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) — The jury in the John Edwards campaign corruption trial has reached a verdict on one of six counts, but is apparently deadlocked on the others.

John Edwards file photo: Shutterstock.

The judge told the jury Thursday that she understood that the panel had reached a verdict on all counts, and the jury foreman said no.

Prosecutors argued that the jury should keep deliberating and the defense asked for the verdict on the one count and a mistrial on the others.

The judge is taking a five minute break to weigh her options.

Most Important Opinions

Tort/Negligence – STCA – Schools & School Boards – Bus/Van Collision – Right of Way – Bus Driver’s Lookout (access required)

Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.

Taxation – State Income — U.S. Treasury Bonds – Market Discount Income – First Impression — Interest (access required)

Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.

Contract – Forum Selection Clause – Arbitration – Labor & Employment (access required)

Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.