January 09, 2006

Justice DeLayed

is justice denied.

And the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to delay justice for Congressman Tom DeLay, despite state and federal constitutional guarantees of a right to a speedy trial.

AUSTIN, Texas -- The state's highest criminal court on Monday denied Rep. Tom DeLay's request that the money laundering charges against him be dismissed or sent back to a lower court for an immediate trial.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied the requests with no written order two days after he announced he was stepping down as House majority leader. DeLay had been forced to temporarily relinquish the Republican leadership post after he was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges in September.

DeLay, who denies wrongdoing, had been trying to rush to trial in Texas in hopes of clearing his name and regaining the position.

One has to wonder, though, if DeLay's resignation from that leadership position on Saturday might have led the court to find the vindication of the congressman's rights to be less compelling.

DeLay's lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said his client's announcement might have prompted the court's action.

"I'm sure the events of the weekend have something to do with it," DeGuerin said. "There's not the time crunch there was."

Now that DeLay is no longer trying to reclaim the leadership post before Congress convenes Jan. 31, his trial is likely to be postponed for weeks, if not months.

However, DeGuerin said that DeLay, facing re-election opponents in the March primary and, if he wins that, the November general election, would prefer to be tried before the primary.

"We'd like to have it resolved by then," he said.

Dut given the dilatory pace of the Ronnie Earle-led investigation, I doubt that there will be a trial by March. After all, he has been sending out subpoena's to groups that criticize him, as well as to anyone even tangentially connected to the Abramoff case, seeking additional charges against the former majority leader. A short trial date would necessarily force Earle to stop searching for a real crime and start focusing on the charges he grand jury-shopped for last fall.

So for now, no one knows when there will be a trial -- or if it will at all conform to constitutional notions of "speed".

Barring outright dismissal of the charges by that court, however, a trial could be postponed until later this year because of the lawyers' schedules and several outstanding pretrial fights, including whether the defendants would be tried in Travis County or some other Texas community.

Asked when he thought DeLay might actually be tried, DeGuerin said, "I've stopped guessing."

A DeLay spokesman blamed Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle for fighting DeLay's attempt to receive a quick trial.

"Ronnie Earle has gamed the justice system in Texas in a way that has kept Mr. DeLay's eventual exoneration in a holding pattern," Kevin Madden said. "He will eventually be cleared, but it's a terrible thing that Ronnie Earle has sought to deny that full exoneration for as long as possible."

Earle declined to comment.

In the appellate briefs, Earle said DeLay was asking for special treatment by demanding that his trial be in January.

I guess Earle doesn't find the constitutional rights of defendant's to be particularly compelling -- especially when he is granting access to movie crews to document the case, using his case as a partisan fundraising gambit, and restructuring the lcongressional leadership of the other party.

And then there is this.

The state is appealing the dismissal of a related indictment against DeLay accusing him of conspiracy to violate the state's election laws. Earle said the state has a right to have its appeal heard before prosecutors decide upon which charge to try DeLay.

What is this -- was the indictment merely a tactic to avoid the statute of limitations? Is Earle conceding that he does not really have a case against DeLay, merely charges that lack sufficient credibility to go to trial in a timely fashion? Especially since the remaining charges carry heavier sentences than the otiginal charge brought, which was dismissed for not being on the books at the time of the alleged offense. This is beginning to look like another case of Earle's -- the one against Kay Bailey Hutchison over a decade ago, which was dismissed with prejudice because the prosecution could not proceed when the trial was scheduled due to lack of substantive evidence.

PREVIOUS POSTS:
DeLay Withdraws From Leadership Position
More Opportunistic Subpoenas From Ronnie Earle
Ronnie Earle's Strategy -- Delay DeLay! Delay DeLay!
Another Ronnie Earle Fishing Expedition
More Delay In DeLay Case
Latest DeLay Bid For Immediate Trial
No Due Process For DeLay
DeLay Screwed By Judge Priest
Ronnie Earle's Assault On Free Speech

DeLay Team Targets Ronnie Earle's Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Ronnie Earle Goes Fishing
So Much For A Right To A Speedy Trial
A Victory For DeLay
DeLay Wants No Delay
Plea Possibility Considered
I Love It!
Earle Offered Plea Bargain
Evidence? Ronnie Doesn't Need No Stinking Evidence!
Unethical Prosecutorial Conduct
Grand Jury Shopping
Liberal Austin Paper Criticizes Earle
A Note On The New DeLay Indictments
"The Law And The Truth On My Side"
Ronnie Earle Whitewash In Washington Post
Prosecutorial Misconduct?

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 877 words, total size 7 kb.

1 That's an all-Republican Texas Court of Criminal Appeals telling DeLay to jump in a lake. It's pretty obvious, from the behavior of his former friends in Congress, the man is going to be checking into the Hotel Graybar . . .

Posted by: Dan at Tue Jan 10 06:11:35 2006 (FswLp)

2 Good grief, Dan, I find it amazing that someone like you, who claims to know something about the law, would think this ruling on a motion constitutes a decision on the merits of the prosecution's case.

Or that the political scrambling of a group of politicians is indicative of someone's guilt or innocence.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 10 11:07:06 2006 (uHqzG)

3 I never said it was a ruling on the merits, though I do remember a certain someone crowing with delight like it was a major victory when the court had it briefed. But the fact that the Republicans on the court and in congress are abandoning him shows the depths of trouble he's in.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Jan 10 14:23:48 2006 (aSKj6)

4 Hey, you are right -- I thought it was a victory that the motion was heard. I did not think it was at all indicative of the merit of the prosecution's case.

And I would argue the change of momentum in congress is less about the merits of the case than it is about appearances -- even I thought he shoud step aside permanently, and i am a DeLay supporter.

As for the ruling by the judges, party affiliation is not really a factor.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jan 10 14:43:54 2006 (uHqzG)

5 RWR - Yes, I agree that if the judges are good judges, and I have no reason to believe they are anything less, party affiliation is absolutely irrlevant. To be honest, I'm kind of ashamed of myself for hinting the opposite.

But, that said, would you mind putting the first 4 words of your last comment on a plaque and sending it to me?

Posted by: Dan at Wed Jan 11 02:22:35 2006 (aSKj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0077, elapsed 0.0163 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0108 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]