# DeLay indicted **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 28, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877 "2005-09-28T16:51:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/121 "2005-09-29T16:48:57Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > So he “conspired” to violate election laws but he didn’t actually violate election laws. Well, maybe. As I said, good luck with all that. Hey thanks. I’m sure Earle will not need luck, and most people will not have a problem understanding that if you conspire with others to break a law, that’s a bad thing. Kind of like someone who conspires to commit murder or rob a bank isn’t innocent even if they don’t pull the trigger or go in the bank. You tool. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/122 "2005-09-29T16:57:35Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > So he “conspired” to violate election laws but he didn’t actually violate election laws. Well, maybe. As I said, good luck with all that. You think Zacarias Moussaoui should’ve gotten off scot-free, huh? After all, the only things [the government ended up tagging him for](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7573706/) were: Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries, Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy, Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft, Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction, Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees, and Conspiracy to Destroy Property Geeze, what’s the big deal? It’s not like he _actually_ commited acts of terrorism, aircraft piracy, destroy aircraft, use weapons of mass destruction, murder U.S. employees, or destroy property. (Before some smartass accuses me of comparing Delay to a terrorist or murderer: no, of course these are way more serious than money laundering, DUH. My point is that conspiracy to commit \_\_\_ _is_ a crime, not just committing \_\_\_\_.) ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/123 "2005-09-29T17:04:31Z")
> [@choie](#): > > (Before some smartass accuses me of comparing Delay to a terrorist or murderer: no, of course these are way more serious than money laundering, DUH. My point is that conspiracy to commit \_\_\_ _is_ a crime, not just committing \_\_\_\_.) :: _steps back to see if it will take_ :: ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/124 "2005-09-29T17:25:08Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > :: _steps back to see if it will take_ :: Might as well go on with your life - it won’t take. At best, **stephe96** will drop this line of questioning with no further ado, and immediately take up a new line which is both completely unrelated to this line and has no more grounding in fact than this line. And contains as many words and phrases that connote negatively as the internet can provide. That’s pretty much been his/her/its MO. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/125 "2005-09-29T17:35:45Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Hey thanks. I’m sure Earle will not need luck, and most people will not have a problem understanding that if you conspire with others to break a law, that’s a bad thing. Kind of like someone who conspires to commit murder or rob a bank isn’t innocent even if they don’t pull the trigger or go in the bank. You tool. I don’t know, DeLay has evidently hired [Dick DeGuerin](http://www.roundtop.com/DeGuerin.htm). Same guy who represented Kay Bailey Hutchinson, as well as David Koresch. He is Kinky Friedman’s Campaign Advisor. Not a GOP yes man by a long shot, yet not too fond of Ronnie Earle. One of the top hired guns in Texas, law professor at UTA. Seems fairly confident he won’t lose this one. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/126 "2005-09-29T17:40:52Z")
And by the way, anyone really interested should take a look at the GD thread. **Bricker** ’s analysis in that thread is far more potent a defense than **Stephe96** ’s sputtering in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/127 "2005-09-29T17:44:34Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > I don’t know, DeLay has evidently hired [Dick DeGuerin](http://www.roundtop.com/DeGuerin.htm). Same guy who represented Kay Bailey Hutchinson, as well as David Koresch. He is Kinky Friedman’s Campaign Advisor. Not a GOP yes man by a long shot, yet not too fond of Ronnie Earle. One of the top hired guns in Texas, law professor at UTA. Seems fairly confident he won’t lose this one. Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that the trial will be a slam dunk. DeLay is not without means to mount a vociferous defense by any stretch. I simply meant that **Stephe’s** hand-waving “Conspiracy? I don’t get it.” defense will not require any luck on Earle’s part to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/128 "2005-09-29T18:13:33Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > And by the way, anyone really interested should take a look at the GD thread. **Bricker** ’s analysis in that thread is far more potent a defense than **Stephe96** ’s sputtering in this thread. You’re right, but I wasn’t trying to “defend” anyone. I was simply asking questions. I guess **Bricker** is a lawyer? Anyway, my questions were answered in his/her posts, and as I suspected trying to prove a conspiracy charge _by itself_ would appear to be a difficult thing to do. I predict this thing will never make it to trial, based on Earle’s suspect past. As soon as Hutchinson, for example, asked for a jury trial Earle moved to drop the charges, to no avail. Delay is doing the smart thing by confronting this charge, and Earle, head on. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/129 "2005-09-29T18:32:55Z")
I’m wondering if a statute of limitations ran out on the more serious crime, and all they could tag him with is the cover up. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/130 "2005-09-29T18:33:27Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > So he “conspired” to violate election laws but he didn’t actually violate election laws. Well, maybe. As I said, good luck with all that. Yeah, hopefully he’ll have as much luck as the prosecutor who charged Martha Stewart with conspiracy, but not actual insider trading. > [@](#): > > . . . as I suspected trying to prove a conspiracy charge by itself would appear to be a difficult thing to do. Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. See Martha Stewart. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/131 "2005-09-29T18:37:07Z")
> [@Stephe96](#): > > I predict this thing will never make it to trial, based on Earle’s suspect past. As soon as Hutchinson, for example, asked for a jury trial Earle moved to drop the charges, to no avail. Delay is doing the smart thing by confronting this charge, and Earle, head on. It never ceases to amaze me how people post such clangers when the facts are so easy to look up. Earle moved to drop the charges because the judge refused to rule on whether he would accept incriminating tapes into evidence. When he refused to make the ruling, Earle dropped the charges in order to gather more evidence and start later in front of a judge who might rule pretrial. _Then_ the judge swore in a jury and instructed them to acquit Hutchinson. Pointless partisan cunt, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/132 "2005-09-29T18:42:15Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Yeah, hopefully he’ll have as much luck as the prosecutor who charged Martha Stewart with conspiracy, but not actual insider trading. Difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. See Martha Stewart. The difference between the cases is that there was extrinsic evidence to shore up the prosecution’s version: Ms. Stewart did, in fact, sell her shares of ImClone. So the jury could infer from that event her participation in an agreement to user insider knowledge. Here (so far) there is no similar piece of evidence. As I mentioned in the GD thread, this is not legally fatal. The jury could convict Delay based only on the testimony of the other accused conspirators. But if that’s the only thing the jury has to go on, the defense will suggest that the other conspirators’ testimony was motivated by the deals offered to them by the prosecution, and that the prosecution is politically motivated. With absolutely no evidence of Delay’s participation other than the accusations of the other conspirators, it would probably be an easy story to sell. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/133 "2005-09-29T18:42:41Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > I’m wondering if a statute of limitations ran out on the more serious crime, and all they could tag him with is the cover up. This is from a post on DemocraticUnderground, but what the hell, this is the Pit: > [@](#): > > When I read the indictment I found something interesting. > > The long and short of the legalese is that Delay, acting with the advice of his counsel, waived his statute of limitations defense in advance of the issuance of the indictment. > > You know, the statute of limitations is the part of the law that says for certain crimes you have to bring the charge within a certain number of years, months, whatever. Delay waived the 3 year statute on this charge. > > He was not indicted out of the blue, then. His attorneys were aware of the pending indictment, and participated in its preparation. > > Why would he waive the statute of limitations on a state jail felony charge? (Under Texas law a ‘state jail felony’ is a sort of cross between a misdemeanor and a felony. It’s a felony, but you get probation right off the bat and you can’t go to prison for it) It says he waived it with the advice of counsel. > > I’m a defense attorney, Federal, and have been a state defense attorney. The only reason I would advise a client to waive a statute of limitations objection to a felony is if it were in exchange for a reduced charge. > > In other words, Ronnie Earle must have told Delay’s attorneys that if he didn’t agree to waive the statute of limitations for a state jail felony, he would be charged with something more serious, some sort of charge with a longer statute of limitations. > > Hell, this case may already be headed for a no-jail but resign sort of plea bargain. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/134 "2005-09-29T18:50:27Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > It never ceases to amaze me how people post such clangers when the facts are so easy to look up. > > Earle moved to drop the charges because the judge refused to rule on whether he would accept incriminating tapes into evidence. When he refused to make the ruling, Earle dropped the charges in order to gather more evidence and start later in front of a judge who might rule pretrial. _Then_ the judge swore in a jury and instructed them to acquit Hutchinson. > > Pointless partisan cunt, indeed. That story doesn’t make much sense. Are you sure there isn’t a nuance you’re missing? Admission of evidence is a matter that is left to the discretion of the judge. It’s not at all unusual for a judge to refuse to rule on an issue of evidence pre-trial, because the admissibility of evidence may change based on the foundations laid at trial, and the evidentiary doors opened during testimony. On the other hand, the judge cannot force the state to procede with a prosecution. The judge cannot, \* sua sponte\*, swear in a jury and open a trial without the prosecution’s consent. If the prosecution wishes to drop the charges, they can. It’s true that jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is sworn. Once that point is past, the prosecution’s request to drop the charges will result in a mistrial, not a verdict of acquittal. Double jeopardy may, or may not, bar a retrial, depending on the reasons for the mistrial. If the judge orders the jury to reach a verdict of actiuttal, the prosecution may appeal. For all these reasons, your account of the events seems unlikely. Do you have a cite, by chance? ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/135 "2005-09-29T18:54:10Z")
Hi, **Stephe**. Long time no see, and I’d forgotten what a willfully ignorant little turd you were. Actually, I’d forgotten that you existed. Probably a waste of my time, but I wanted to point out to you that lots of people are sent to prison on conspiracy convictions. Charlie Manson, for instance. My guess, if I had to put money down, is that Delay will crack and start ratting out his buddies in an attempt to keep out of prison. (Maybe it’s just wishful thinking.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/136 "2005-09-29T18:54:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > This is from a post on DemocraticUnderground, but what the hell, this is the Pit: I can think of plenty of other reasons to waive an SOL claim on the indictment. Chief among them are political: the prosecutor could have told him, “Look, I’ll indict you two weeks before the election, even though I’m not ready to proceed to trial just yet. Or you can give me more time, and I’ll hold off on the indictment until after the election.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/137 "2005-09-29T19:02:28Z")
The miasma has been hanging over DeLay for years, and this move has long been expected, especially by him. Politically it doesn’t make any difference. But you can keep hoping this will just go away all you want, if it comforts you. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/138 "2005-09-29T19:07:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The miasma has been hanging over DeLay for years, and this move has long been expected, especially by him. You’re right. Earle has been shopping this charge around to grand jury after grand jury for years until he finally got one to bite. How many grand juries was it? Four? Five? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/139 "2005-09-29T19:17:16Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > Hi, **Stephe**. I wanted to point out to you that lots of people are sent to prison on conspiracy convictions. Charlie Manson, for instance. Charles Manson may have been convicted for conspiracy, but he was definitely convicted on seven counts of first degree murder. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877/140 "2005-09-29T19:19:09Z")
Your skepticism is appreciated, **Bricker**. I did a fair amount of digging and found scarcely any content. One useful article is located [here](http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1203/p01s04-usgn.html). It presents a different picture than the tendentious one I paraphrased from, of all places, [famoustexans.com](http://famoustexans.com). > [@](#): > > There have been some notable missteps, though, the biggest in 1994 when he went after GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for allegedly misusing state telephones for political business. At a pretrial hearing, the judge questioned the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence and Earle declined to present a case. That led to Senator Hutchison’s acquittal, and many saw the DA as an amateur. > > “He should have gone ahead and tried the case,” says Mr. Allison. “Instead, he dumped it in the grease. And it didn’t have anything to do with politics; it had to do with his inexperience.” The case still perturbs many in the GOP. It sounds to me like he was just a deer caught in the headlights. Do you think this is reasonable? The case appears to have been tossed out. No jury ever handed down a verdict. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/delay-indicted/323877.md?page=8)