In closing arguments, John Edwards' attorney argued that he committed sins, not crimes. With one not guilty verdict and a mistrial on the other five counts due to a deadlocked jury, it appears that his defense worked. This explicit defense separating law from morality could be good fodder for Jurisprudence courses and other dicussions about the overlap between law and morality.
For an interesting read on how the National Enquirer broke the story, here's an article on Huffington Post by David Perel, then-Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer. The article details the investigation and provides Perel's take on what this saga says about our presidential politics and the ability to find truth in courtrooms. Here's an excerpt:
Edwards, Hunter and Young retained separate counsel in an attempt to stop the Enquirer's expose of the affair, the pregnancy and the money trail. None of them knew that for months a team of Enquirer reporters, living in Young's gated community, watched Hunter and Young daily and had knowledge of Hunter often dining at the Young's house. So when Andrew Young and his attorneys contended that HE was the father of Hunter's baby, incredulity was replaced by laughter from my team. Yes, we were supposed to believe that he brought his pregnant mistress home regularly for dinner with his wife and children.
I can imagine The Who's I'm Free running through Edwards' brain head right about now.