Jurors get the case of former governor in Edwards trial

Natalie Gott

Tuesday, April 25, 2000 | 10:45 a.m.

BATON ROUGE, La. - Jurors today began their first full day of deliberations in former Gov. Edwin Edwards federal racketeering trial with a question about taped evidence.

"The portions of the tape transcripts that were played during closing arguments; can they be used during our deliberations? Can we consider these tape transcripts as evidence, also?" jurors asked in a note to U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola.

Polozola's answer: The tapes used during closing arguments may be considered by the jury because they were previously admitted into evidence. But the transcripts - printed versions of the recorded conversations - are not evidence.

The tapes, along with testimony from three of Edwards' former friends, play a large role in the trial.

The four-term former governor, his son, Stephen, and five other men are accused of plotting to extort money from people who wanted lucrative riverboat casino licenses.

The former four-term governor and his son could, theoretically, get hundreds of years in jail if convicted on all of the dozens of charges against them. Since the elder Edwards is 72, even a few years could add up to life in prison.

He had little to say as court ended Monday.

"The gag order is still in effect," he told reporters on the courthouse steps.

The Edwardses, state Sen. Greg Tarver and four other defendants are accused of scheming to manipulate riverboat casino licensing during Edwards' fourth term and after he left office in January 1996.

Their trial started Jan. 10.

The jurors - seven men and five women - deliberated about four hours Monday and elected Juror 64 as their foreman. The names of the jurors have not been disclosed so jurors are referred to only by their numbers.

Juror 64 is a 40-year-old machinist at a chemical plant and has three children. He does not gamble and said during jury selection that gambling "is there for people who don't participate in it to make money."

He previously served on the jury in a drug case and voted for acquittal, but the case ended in a mistrial.

Before dismissing the jurors for the day, Polozola told them he would look into getting them a microwave. The jurors will not be sequestered.

U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola took a little more than three hours to read the 96 pages of instructions to the jury.

Defendants and their families showed little emotion when the jury left the courtroom. But Polozola told lawyers that he expects the deliberations to be emotional and said he requested that everyone "cooperate with me in that regard."

Already one of the jurors showed emotion, Polozola said, by crying when he read her instructions. The juror is one of the two alternates. They were told they did not need to come to court unless two jurors had to be dismissed.

Deliberations can continue with 11 jurors, but not with 10, Polozola said.

The judge told jurors they may set their own break times and may work late if they wish. But he said he would like them to work every day from at least 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.

As most defendants followed along as Polozola read the charge, Stephen Edwards took careful note of the jurors. Edwin Edwards sometimes closed his eyes; at other times he looked up from the charge to watch the jurors, some of whom took notes and underlined phrases on their copies of the instructions.

Defendants' relatives were among the few spectators as the 16-week trial ground toward its close.

Edwin Edwards' wife, Candy, shook her head "no" a few times while Polozola read a summary of the indictment as part of the jury charge. Edwards' daughters, Anna and Victoria, watched the jurors intently.

The maximum sentences on the 26 counts against Edwards add up to more than 300 years; those for Stephen Edwards add up to nearly 300.

In all, there are 91 charges in the indictment for all the defendants. However, jurors must vote 169 times before they have completed the 11-page verdict form. The extra 78 votes will help jurors determine whether the Edwardses and their co-defendants Andrew Martin and Cecil Brown are guilty of racketeering influence and corrupt organizations.

Jurors must unanimously agree that those defendants committed at least two racketeering acts as outlined in the indictment, that a criminal enterprise did exist and they were involved or associated with it.