John Edwards Flirting With Female Juror?

That’s what one ABC News reporter covering his trial (currently in Day 5 of jury deliberations) says:

Since the alternates were identified last Thursday, it has been impossible to ignore the dynamic between Edwards and one of the female alternates, an attractive young woman with jet-black hair, who seems to have been flirting with Edwards for days.

The juror clearly instigated the exchanges. She smiles at him.   He smiles at her.    She giggles.     He blushes.

The flirtation has become so obvious that even Edwards’ attorneys have to work to suppress their laughter at the absurdity of it all.

Since this woman is an alternate, Edwards isn’t really impacting deliberations and we’re at the point now where removal of one of the empaneled jurors requiring an alternate to step in and particpate in deliberations would be incredibly unusual. Not to mention the fact that if it happened the prosecution would no doubt object to this woman being the alternate who gets seated in such an event.

Nonetheless, and keeping in mind my doubts about the actual criminal culpability of Edwards in this case, this is pretty creepy, sleazy…..well I need a Thesaurus at this point.

Update: Another thought comes to mind when I read this part of the report:

Here’s a riddle:   What comes in group of four and is the color of French’s Mustard?

After a week of deliberations, the four alternate jurors have become the prime distraction for the assembled press corps and spectators in the courtroom.

On Thursday the alternates – three women and one man – caused something of a stir when they showed up in matching bright yellow shirts, hardly bothering to suppress their snickering as the judge addressed the main panel of jurors. Today they are all wearing red.

Is this just an example of alternates in a long jury trial who are being required to sit around and do nothing while the other twelve deliberate being a little cheeky? Or, is it a sign that the jurors as a whole don’t really think very much of the prosecution’s case?

H/T: @SisterToldjah on Twitter

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. merl says:

    i think it’s showing some contempt of the entire proceedings.

  2. al-Ameda says:

    I can’t believe that this case even went to trial.
    Edwards should have cut the best deal he could to avoid this show.

  3. @al-Ameda:

    As I noted in this article, I still have serious doubts about the merits of the criminal case against Edwards. But, yea, there was a deal on the table that he refused to take. He may end up regretting that

  4. Tsar Nicholas says:

    When the little head controls the big head the big head go loco.

    Regarding this prosecution, it is and always was a monumental waste of federal tax dollars.

  5. al-Ameda says:

    @Doug Mataconis:
    Doug, actually, I agree(d) with your take on the doubts of the merits of the criminal case against Edwards, however this trial has done nothing good for Edwards and he has probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (over a million, perhaps) for this litigation. The choices for Edwards were not good, but … this trial seems to be the worst direction for him to have taken.

  6. Idiot says:

    This just proves how much money Edwards wasted on expensive haircuts when the cheaper one works just fine.

    What’s remarkable, if the reports are accurate, is that the man is on trial and still can muster even a modicum of self restraint.

  7. @al-Ameda:

    Oh I agree with you, on that assessment. And, I would guarantee you that his attorneys had “the talk” with him about the plea offer when it was made. But, the decision is ultimately the client’s and apparently Edwards’ main concern about pleading guilty was that he might have to surrender his license to practice law. And this was a deal that would have resulted in him spending almost no time in custody.

    As if anyone would hire him as an attorney at any point in the foreseeable future.

  8. Davebo says:

    Edwards’ main concern about pleading guilty was that he might have to surrender his license to practice law. And this was a deal that would have resulted in him spending almost no time in custody.

    What is the source for this information Doug? And what is “almost no time” exactly?

  9. grumpy realist says:

    @Doug Mataconis: I’m reminded of the first Blagojevich lawyer, who finally quit, saying “I don’t insist that my client TAKE my advice. I do however expect him to at least LISTEN to my advice.”

    Guys, if you ever get in the mangling jaws of the US litigation system and your lawyer says: I recommend you take this deal–then you might want to think: Better take the deal.