# Fuck Tom DeLay and Corrupt Texan "Justice" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237 "2013-09-19T16:05:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/1 "2013-09-19T16:05:42Z")
[Tom DeLay’s conviction on money laundering was overturned.](http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/DeLay-conviction-overturned-4827002.php) I think my favorite[sup]1[/sup] part is the opinion from the court that overturned it: > [@Austin Amoral Assholes](#): > > Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal “Sure, a jury convicted him, but we think they shouldn’ta.” Fuck you! Do you have anything specific? Aren’t jury convictions supposed to _mean something?_ Why the fuck do you even have juries if an appeals court can just say, “Nope. You decided wrong.” Before some asshole even starts, I know why appeals courts exist. If you can point to something that was wrong in the original case - the defendant didn’t get good counsel, or new evidence has come to light, or the evidence was tainted, or the law is unjust or violates a higher law - of course you want redress. But juries’ decisions are supposed to be _respected_. The burden of proof after conviction is supposed to shift. This is basically “we would have made a different decision than the jury, so suck it.” In **TEXAS**. The textbook example of a place that doesn’t like to dwell too long on convictions, if it’s a capital crime. I don’t know what offends me more - that the justices clearly started with the conclusion and backed into a decision, or that they think people are stupid enough to believe this wasn’t just naked disregard for justice. [sup]1[/sup] bitter sarcasm ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/2 "2013-09-19T16:24:27Z")
DeLay probably threatened to drop a dime on crooked judges and big money contributors if they didn’t get him out of the slammer. Another corrupt motherfucker walks while making a mockery of the legal system he supposedly served. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/3 "2013-09-19T16:40:56Z")
> [@bup](#): > > [Tom DeLay’s conviction on money laundering was overturned.](http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/DeLay-conviction-overturned-4827002.php) > > I think my favorite[sup]1[/sup] part is the opinion from the court that overturned it: > “Sure, a jury convicted him, but we think they shouldn’ta.” > > Fuck you! Do you have anything specific? That’s not the entirety of the opinon, of course. [Here it is.](http://images.bimedia.net/documents/tom-delay-appeal-doc-12D.pdf) Yes, they had specific reasons to overturn the verdict. > [@bup](#): > > Aren’t jury convictions supposed to _mean something?_ Why the fuck do you even have juries if an appeals court can just say, “Nope. You decided wrong.” > > Before some asshole even starts, I know why appeals courts exist. If you can point to something that was wrong in the original case - the defendant didn’t get good counsel, or new evidence has come to light, or the evidence was tainted, or the law is unjust or violates a higher law - of course you want redress. > > But juries’ decisions are supposed to be _respected_. The burden of proof after conviction is supposed to shift. > > This is basically “we would have made a different decision than the jury, so suck it.” What was wrong with the original case, after reading the opinion, was that a money laundering conviction requires that the money be the proceeds of criminal activity, and: > [@](#): > > “If the evidence establishes precisely what the State has alleged, but the acts that the State has alleged do not constitute a criminal offense under the totality of the circumstances, then that evidence, as a matter of law, cannot support a conviction.” > Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750. Make sense? A conviction for money laundering requires the proceeds be from criminal activity, and what the state alleged DeLay did wasn’t actually a violation of Texas law. Thus, he can’t be convicted of money laundering. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/4 "2013-09-19T16:41:08Z")
> [@](#): > > If you can point to something that was wrong in the original case - the defendant didn’t get good counsel, or new evidence has come to light, or the evidence was tainted, or the law is unjust or violates a higher law - of course you want redress. Something _was_ wrong in the original case - there was not enough evidence to legally sustain a conviction. Perhaps **Bricker** will stop by and slap you around for a bit with legal cites until you understand that the law applies to Republicans just as much as to everyone else. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/5 "2013-09-19T16:44:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Something _was_ wrong in the original case - there was not enough evidence to legally sustain a conviction. Oddly enough, the jury thought otherwise. Why even bother with those if we have you instead? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/6 "2013-09-19T16:51:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly enough, the jury thought otherwise. Why even bother with those if we have you instead? If you read the opinion, you’ll see that the issue was with the prosecution: even if everything they alleged were true, it didn’t constitute a crime under Texas law. The jury isn’t allowed to convict for non-crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/7 "2013-09-19T16:51:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly enough, the jury thought otherwise. Why even bother with those if we have you instead? Ask the defendants in the McMartin preschool case if there should be no appealing the say-so of a jury. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/8 "2013-09-19T16:54:49Z")
No, no, no - everyone knows that juries are always right, and that’s why no death sentence in Texas should ever be overturned. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/9 "2013-09-19T16:55:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If you read the opinion, you’ll see that the issue was with the prosecution: even if everything they alleged were true, it didn’t constitute a crime under Texas law. Oddly enough, the prosecutor disagreed and the trial judge let it proceed anyway. It’s amazing how they could waste so much time, knowing as well that the defendant is part of the Good Ol’ Boy Network that would find a way to let him off somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/10 "2013-09-19T16:58:05Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I think my favorite[sup]1[/sup] part is the opinion from the court that overturned it: > “Sure, a jury convicted him, but we think they shouldn’ta.” > > Fuck you! Do you have anything specific? Your attempt to analyze the reasoning of the opinion is deeply flawed. The appeals court did not substitute their judgement for the jury. And they did have something specific, which they explained in great detail. The laundry list of reasons for acquittal you mention is incomplete, and your rant shows you simply don’t understand this particular reason. Oddly, on a message board in which the primary purpose of interacting is supposedly to eradicate ignorance, you do not confront your ignorance and humbly endeavor to learn. Instead, you shout it from the rooftops: “I don’t understand this process,” you may as well have said, “and therefore it is wrong.” In this case, the problem was not with the jury verdict itself. The evidence establishes exactly what the state alleged. The problem is that those acts, the ones the state alleged and proved to the jury, do not actually constitute a criminal offense under the laws of Texas. In simple cases, this doesn’t often happen. But it can. Suppose Jerry steals a prepaid Visa debit card from you and uses it to buy an Xbox. He is arrested and charged with credit card fraud. The jury hears evidence that proves he took that card and used it to buy the Xbox, which was still in his possession when he was arrested. They convict. But on appeal, Jerry may point out that a Visa debit card is not, technically, a “credit card” within the meaning of the law. So even though the state proved he took the debit card, and the card has a Visa logo, that doesn’t make it a credit card. His conviction will be overturned _as a matter of law_, because the evidence didn’t prove his guilt of the crime of credit card fraud. That’s essentially what happened here. The prosecution proved that the existence of corporate donations to TRMPAC, and they proved that DeLay’s entered into and agreement with others to the money swap procedure. The state said that such donations violated the Election Code, and therefore were “dirty.” When DeLay transferred funds from TRMPAC to RNSEC and then transferred money from RNSEC to Texas candidates, that was “laundering” the dirty money into clean money, and that’s a violation of Texas Penal Code § 34.02(a). But the appeals court said no – that in fact, the corporate contributions to TRMPAC were themselves legal. The state did not prove any contributors to TRMPAC intended anything illegal to be done. Therefore, those funds were not “dirty,” and the money laundering crime cannot happen, since it depends on the existence of “dirty” money in the first place; you can’t launder clean money. By the way: this doesn’t simply reverse the conviction and leave DeLay vulnerable to a new trial. This judgement says that the State had no evidence to begin with that he was guilty, and therefore orders him acquitted. If this ruling stands, DeLay cannot be retried; the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a retrial following an acquittal. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/11 "2013-09-19T17:02:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly enough, the prosecutor disagreed and the trial judge let it proceed anyway. About that: > [@](#): > > As alleged in this case, a person commits the offense of money laundering “if the person knowingly . . . conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity.” Tex. Penal Code § 34.02(a)(2). > [@](#): > > The deficiency of the State’s case is illustrated by the confusion displayed by the jury during deliberations. The money laundering statute required the State to prove that the funds involved in the transaction were the “proceeds of criminal activity.” See Tex. Penal Code § 34.02(a)(2). Essentially, if the funds were not “proceeds of criminal activity,” the subsequent transaction was not money laundering. See, e.g., King v. State, 254 S.W.3d 579, 580–85 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (holding evidence legally insufficient, and distinguishing case where > there was “a nexus between the money and some criminal activity that had previously taken place”); see also United States v. Butler, 211 F.3d 826, 830 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Put plainly, the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted > by crime.”). > > During deliberations, the jury asked the trial judge that question of law in this way: “Can it constitute money laundering if the money wasn’t procured by illegal means originally?” The request for an instruction on the law was proper. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.27 (The trial court “shall answer any such communication in writing.”); Gamblin v. State, 476 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (The statute “requires the court to answer communications of the jury and give additional instructions upon questions of law when the request is proper.”). The proper answer to the question is “no.” The jury’s question about the law was not answered, however; the court simply referred the jury to the court’s charge. > > Later, during deliberations, the jury asked the question again: Does the money “have to be illegal at the start of the transaction” Again, the question was a proper one, and the answer to that re-phrasing of the same question is “yes.” Otherwise, the funds would not be “proceeds of criminal activity.” But the prosecutor argued to the trial judge that the money could be obtained legally and still be laundered. The trial court did not answer the jury’s question of law, but once again simply referred the jury to the jury charge that was questioned. > > While the jury was in the jury room deliberating, the prosecutor, addressing the jury’s questions, argued to the trial judge: > > Well,Your Honor, I feel a little bad for the jury because I think it is evident from > their questions that they are confused about the law. > . . . . > And they are just expected to be arbitrators of the facts, not the law. And I think we’ve put them in an uncomfortable position of trying to decide what the law is, which is not their job. > > As the prosecutor commented, the jury should not have been placed in the “uncomfortable position of trying to decide what the law is, which is not their job.” The jury’s questions to the trial judge, along with the prosecutor’s argument in response, point to the lack of evidence showing that the funds involved in the transaction were the proceed of criminal activity. The State did not prove the funds were “illegal at the start of the transaction” or “procured by illegal means originally,” as phrased by the jury in the two questions about the law. The lack of legally sufficient evidence that the funds were “proceeds of criminal activity” requires an acquittal. If the judge had simply answered the jury’s question about the law, there’d be no conviction to reverse. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] It’s amazing how they could waste so much time, knowing as well that the defendant is part of the Good Ol’ Boy Network that would find a way to let him off somehow. [/QUOTE] Shocking as it may be to contemplate, sometimes even Good Ol’ Boys are wrongfully convicted. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/12 "2013-09-19T17:02:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly enough, the jury thought otherwise. Why even bother with those if we have you instead? If a jury convicts someone against the law, the conviction is invalid. Do you have a problem with that? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/13 "2013-09-19T17:18:07Z")
So if I understand correctly, the scheme here was to collect corporate donations and put them in Account A, and then make payments to candidates in identical amounts from Account B, when it would have been illegal for the corporation to make such donations directly. The Court reasoned that it isn’t money laundering unless the donation to Account A was illegal in and of itself. But wouldn’t the fact of the scheme itself, and in particular the exact equality of amounts distributed, be evidence from which a jury could infer that the corporate donors intended for their donations to reach candidates (and reap the benefits of such donations)? Or am I misunderstanding the facts? This is just based on a quick read. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/14 "2013-09-19T17:20:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By the way: this doesn’t simply reverse the conviction and leave DeLay vulnerable to a new trial. This judgement says that the State had no evidence to begin with that he was guilty, and therefore orders him acquitted. If this ruling stands, DeLay cannot be retried; the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a retrial following an acquittal. “If this ruling stands”? How will this ruling not stand? The court has delivered an acquittal, meaning he has been found innocent, does the state _ever_ challenge such a ruling? By the way, I like the part where they say that conspiring to violate election code was not a crime in '02. They say he committed no crime, and conspiring to commit that non-crime was not a crime. Sounds like piling on the excuses to me. ---
**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 19, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/15 "2013-09-19T17:28:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly enough, the prosecutor disagreed and the trial judge let it proceed anyway. It’s amazing how they could waste so much time, knowing as well that the defendant is part of the Good Ol’ Boy Network that would find a way to let him off somehow. The prosecutor is a Democrat. I don’t know what party the judge belongs to. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/16 "2013-09-19T17:31:53Z")
> [@For You](#): > > “If this ruling stands”? How will this ruling not stand? The court has delivered an acquittal, meaning he has been found innocent, does the state _ever_ challenge such a ruling? I think the state can appeal the ruling to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. They wouldn’t have been able to appeal a jury acquittal, but they can appeal an Appeals Court decision. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/17 "2013-09-19T17:32:30Z")
> [@For You](#): > > “If this ruling stands”? How will this ruling not stand? The court has delivered an acquittal, meaning he has been found innocent, does the state _ever_ challenge such a ruling? The state certainly can. Why, you ask? Because the acquittal is a matter of law. It’s the same analysis applied a moment ago, in reverse, so to speak. The appeals court said that as a matter of law, there’s no crime in these pattern of financial transactions. A higher court can absolutely reverse them and say, in effect, “You’re wrong: there _is_ such a crime.” And there is a higher court. This is a ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is (I think) the highest court in Texas for criminal cases, so (as I understand Texas Criminal Procedure) the prosecution could appeal this decision to that august body. This is distinct from an acquittal by a jury, which is not appealable, because it’s a decision about the facts, not the law. An appeals court reviews a lower court’s decision about the law _de novo_. (“Anew”) They don’t give any particular deference to the lower court’s decision. The law is the law, the thinking goes, and the lower court is in no better position to read and decide the law than the higher court is. But on the facts, the standard changes dramatically. An appeals court won’t review a factual determination made by the trial court unless there is simply no evidence to support it. > [@](#): > > By the way, I like the part where they say that conspiring to violate election code was not a crime in '02. They say he committed no crime, and conspiring to commit that non-crime was not a crime. Sounds like piling on the excuses to me. I have no idea why that sounds like excuses to you. Delay was accused of conspiracy. Conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime, and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. To analyze his guilt, it’s necessary to first discover the underlying crime and then prove the conspiracy. If you prove a conspiracy, but don’t prove that the agreement involved a real crime, then there’s no guilt. It’s necessary to address both, in other words. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/18 "2013-09-19T17:34:16Z")
The justices in the majority are both Republicans and the dissenter is a Democrat, for those wondering. But this doesn’t strike me as a wildly partisan decision, even if it’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/19 "2013-09-19T17:35:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your attempt to analyze the reasoning of the opinion is deeply flawed. > > The appeals court did not substitute their judgement for the jury. And they did have something specific, which they explained in great detail. The laundry list of reasons for acquittal you mention is incomplete, and your rant shows you simply don’t understand this particular reason. Or that I didn’t know how to find the full court decision until **Human Action** linked it, and was relying on the poorly phrased snippet from the judgment included in the article: “Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions.” I don’t mind your snark, **Bricker**. You’re right, and I get it, even though if DeLay was trusting a jury with his judgment instead of a judge, he deserved what he got. What’s making me pissed right now is that fucking \*\*Shodan \*\*thinks he’s right, but for the wrong reasons. Don’t you hate when somebody who’s \*two \*jumps behind arrives at the right conclusion and thinks they’re smart? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237/20 "2013-09-19T17:38:13Z")
Oh, hell, nobody really thought he would actually go to prison to begin with. And even if he were compelled to reside within the walls of a Texas prison, you could rest assured that his prison experience would be markedly different than the usual. The important thing was bringing some antiseptic sunlight to bear on the sort of thing that is standard procedure in Texas politics. That is worth doing, whether Tom DeLay (R-Undead) goes to prison or not. Change is coming to Texas, with tidal slowness and tidal certainty. Texas is the citadel of fanatic reactionary capitalism, where money talks and you listen. But the sappers are at work, the walls are undermined, and one day…not tomorrow, not soon, but one day…the Republicans will run out of creative ways to prevent the inevitable. As a recovering Texan who both loves and despises his native state, I already bought my dancing shoes. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fuck-tom-delay-and-corrupt-texan-justice/669237.md?page=2)