December 6, 2005
THROW ENOUGH & SOMETHING MIGHT STICK:
DeLay's Felony Charge Is Upheld: But Texas Judge Dismisses Some Conspiracy Counts (R. Jeffrey Smith and Jonathan Weisman, December 6, 2005, Washington Post )
Senior District Judge Pat Priest, who took over the case after DeLay's lawyers objected to another judge on political grounds, did not rule in his 11-page decision on the issue of DeLay's culpability. In a slap at Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle, who oversaw the DeLay inquiry, Priest said a grand jury had erred in indicting DeLay for conspiracy when that crime was actually not covered by the state election law when it occurred.But Priest also said that a different indictment -- hastily secured by Earle from a different grand jury after he realized the conspiracy charge might be flawed -- was worth hearing at trial.
DeLAY FAILS TO GET CASE TOSSED OUT: With charges of money laundering upheld, hopes for a rapid resolution come up short (R.G. RATCLIFFE, 12/06/05, Houston Chronicle)
DeLay's only chance now to avoid trial entirely rests with his challenge to the remaining indictment on the grounds that it was returned by a grand jury as a result of prosecutorial misconduct by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.Posted by Orrin Judd at December 6, 2005 7:29 AMThe election law conspiracy indictment that Priest threw out was returned Sept. 28 after months of investigation by a grand jury whose term was expiring.
But when Earle realized he may have legal problems with that indictment, he tried to get another grand jury to indict DeLay on money laundering charges. That grand jury declined to issue any indictments on Sept. 30.
Earle then got a third grand jury to indict DeLay on the money laundering charges on Oct. 3, the first day it met. DeGuerin said Earle's actions amount to prosecutor misconduct.
Priest has offered to hear the prosecutorial misconduct motion, as well as a motion to move the trial out of Travis County, either next week or the final week of December. But Earle has 15 days to appeal Priest's ruling, which could delay further hearings.
If I read the ruling right, this does not mean that a trial is imminent. The judge dismissed the conspiracy charges outright, but decided to have evidentiary hearings before deciding on the motion to dismiss money-laundering charges. Is that the same thing as having a trial? Any lawyers here who can clarify?
Posted by: sam at December 6, 2005 9:05 AMNo, it is not the same thing. The hearing will be before the judge only. The judge will make a ruling on the motion to dismiss. If he overrules the motion, then there will be a jury trial.
Posted by: Bob at December 6, 2005 9:46 AMThat is what I understood. Which means that the charges on money-laundering were not upheld, the judge has not ruled on the motion to dismiss those charges.
Posted by: sam at December 6, 2005 10:05 AMThe judge also hasn't ruled on the defense motion of prosecutorial misconduct.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 6, 2005 11:24 AMCorrect me if I'm wrong: Certain legal political contributions were not supposed to be used in local elections, so they were sent to the national committee.
Since it's perfectly legal for the national committee to support local elections, how can the state of Texas possibly prove there was a quid pro quo and that some or any of the original contributions went back to local Texas state elections?
Posted by: erp at December 6, 2005 12:15 PMSam: That is what I understood. Which means that the charges on money-laundering were not upheld, the judge has not ruled on the motion to dismiss those charges.
Not quite right. That indictment was challenged on technical legal grounds -- that "criminal proceeds" did not exist in this case, and therefore there was no crime. The judge refused to dismiss on those technical legal grounds.
The DeLay lawyers are coming back with motions to dismiss the indictment on prosecutorial misconduct (that will require an evidentiary hearing) and to move the case.
erp: Since it's perfectly legal for the national committee to support local elections, how can the state of Texas possibly prove there was a quid pro quo and that some or any of the original contributions went back to local Texas state elections?
It's going to be very difficult. So far as I can tell, Ronnie Earle doesn't have any such evidence (just innuendo). That doesn't matter. The longer this drags on, the less likely DeLay gets his post back as majority leader. AND, Nick Lampson not to mention the Houston Chronicle will hit DeLay hard the next election cycle with the phrase, "DeLay, forced to resign his majority leader post under an ethical cloud." Mark my words on that last. It will be spun that way long after Ronnie Earle's case has fallen apart.
Posted by: kevin whited at December 6, 2005 1:04 PMKevin: But it is misleading to characterize the failure to dismiss as "upholding" felony charges.
Posted by: David Cohen at December 6, 2005 1:32 PMThe remaining charges will be gone by the end of January and Ronnie Earle will return to non-entityism in the national media consciousness in the same way no one has heared from Bill Burkett for over a year now.
That doesn't mean the big media outlets and the Democrats are through with DeLay -- the Jack Abramoff situation still looms -- but after jumping on the Earle bandwagon despite nearly two decades of big-name prosecutorial falures, they'll just quietly note the last charges have been tossed and will then tie DeLay as tightly as possible to all the scandals surrounding his former aide.
Posted by: John at December 6, 2005 2:30 PM