But wait. Obviously, Mr. Madden’s spin is a bit strong. If anything the ruling underscores that two of the three charges were actually good. That’s not what has me thinkin’ though. DeLay wants this trial over fast, doesn’t he? But what if the prosecutor appeals? He can, after all:
So in addition to the 180 days that the prosecution would ordinarily have to get ready for trial after the hearing and decision on the prosecutorial misconduct motion and any change of venue (or other pretrial) motions his team might file or any other pretrial, DeLay might have to wait for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and maybe even the Texas Supreme Court to decide an appeal?
Isn’t he worse off because of this decision, at least if Earle appeals it? (I realize Earle might not appeal the decision, of course).
Earle can’t appeal the decision. He has no legal basis to do so, as he charged DeLay with something that wasn’t a crime.
And that by itself is enough to make me think that the rest of the charges will either be dropped or DeLay will be found not guilty if it actually goes to court. That is just plain, dumb, sloppy work on Earle’s part and one has to believe that the rest of it is the same story, just a different verse.
Earle might lose the appeal, but his legal basis for filing it was quoted in the OP.
That’s exactly what DeLay’s team wants you to think. The charges will stick or not, but even the judge that DeLay’s team shopped for didn’t agree with your analysis of the remaining charges. DeLay might or might not be acquitted, but I suspect that’s a long way off, especially if his team keeps filing motions.
The charge was dismissed on legal grounds. The judge agreed with DeLay’s lawyers that the conspiracy charge was not on the books at the time DeLay did his thing.
Apparently DeLay’s team is thinking along these lines. DeLay has asked the judge to sever the counts so that he doesn’t have to wait for the result of the appeal if there is one:
Intriguingly, it appears that a better strategic move for DeLay’s lawyers would have been not to seek a pre-trial dismissal of charges, but to fight for a quick trial and get rid of the conspiracy count at trial. I don’t know Texas procedure, so I’m not sure how that could be done (maybe just a motion in limine, or maybe a directed verdict?), but the delay in getting to trial is solely DeLay’s fault. The judge is right; if the appellate court holds that the conspiracy charge is proper, then the same set of facts could be the subject of two or more trials. That’s hardly efficient, particularly when DeLay started down the procedural path that leads to where we are now.
I wonder if DeGuerin, DeLay’s lawyer, advised DeLay that this was a potential outcome of the motion to dismiss. Sometimes, your own strategy can whip around to bite you in the butt. Squink, thanks for the updates.
As with all cases where an elected official is investigated/prosecuted for crime, the response should be to, in effect, tell the voters of his district: “Yes, we are arguably subverting your will by removing for office the representative you chose. But you remain free to replace him with an honest person of the same political views.” That’s what’s important about voting anyway.
He doesn’t seem to be complaining. Hmmmmm . . .