# Is DeLay going down?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 6, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028 "2005-04-06T13:40:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 8
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/141 "2005-10-04T14:23:34Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#):
>
> … and if the charges from the second indictment don’t stick, well, the prosecutor still followed proper channels.
>
> Of course, I’m no lawyer, and I could be wrong on this. This is how it looks to my untrained eye.
I cannot imagine you’d be so sanguine about a baseless indictment if you were the person so indicted.
Mr. Delay’s attorney fees, expended in an effort to defend himself, will no doubt be substantial. Even if the charges don’t stick, he is not entitled to recover those costs from anyone.
If - if - the prosecutor obtained this indictment without a good-faith belief in the ultimate guilt of the accused, it’s no relief that he followed proper channels. The grand jury is composed of non-lawyers; they follow a prosecutor’s lead. To obtain an indictment, a prosecutor need only present probable cause; still, a prosecutor who KNOWS, or should know, that he can never provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt abuses his position if he brings an indictment.
Of course, if he has a good faith belief that he can prove guilt, THEN all’s right with the world.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/142 "2005-10-04T14:33:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Mr. Delay’s attorney fees, expended in an effort to defend himself, will no doubt be substantial. Even if the charges don’t stick, he is not entitled to recover those costs from anyone.
Do you really doubt he’ll find a way anyway? A lot of people with a lot of money owe him a lot of favors.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/143 "2005-10-04T14:36:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The grand jury is composed of non-lawyers; they follow a prosecutor’s lead. To obtain an indictment, a prosecutor need only present probable cause…
This seems rather dismissive of the judgement of grand juries. How often do grand juries decide \*not \* to indict the target of the prosecutor’s investigation?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/144 "2005-10-04T14:40:59Z")
And how often does a prosecutor fail to do his homework so spectacularly that a grand jury would think there was nothing there?
DeLay may walk, sure. But he’ll always be tainted as dirty in the public eye - and that would still be true if this case had never been brought. He barely won re-election in what should have been a safe district last year - any guesses how much power he’ll have after November 2006, if not sooner? Can any Texas Dopers fill us in on the lineup of challengers?
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/145 "2005-10-04T15:09:04Z")
Not being a mind-reader, it’s impossible to say, of course. But, my take on this is Earl was reasonably confident he had the conspiracy charge in the bag, but not the laundering charge, due to a body of evidence of DeLay’s direct involvement that likely would not be substantial enough to sway a jury. As the conspiracy charge may be dismissed, he’s going for the riskier indictment. He’s doing this because he feels strongly that DeLay _is_ guilty; but he knows he will have a hard time making a case beyond reasonable doubt.
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/146 "2005-10-04T15:59:01Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#):
>
> This seems rather dismissive of the judgement of grand juries. How often do grand juries decide \*not \* to indict the target of the prosecutor’s investigation?
Less often than one might hope, given that the original conception of the grand jury was as a barrier to spurious prosecutions. **Hamlet** (who is a prosecutor) and I once discussed it and he mentioned there was a saying that “A good prosecutor could get a grand jurty to indict a ham sandwich.” My faith in the system, never particularly strong, slipped a little more that day.
Backing up this impression is the experience of one of my best friends, a lawyer who does a fair bit of public defender work, with grand juries. He’s at various courthouses all the time and when a prosecutor is trying to get a grand jury together he has been asked to help fill in the numbers when they need a couple more bodies to meet. Now he’s an arguementative and contrary bastard by nature, and he may well end up being appointed to defend whoever the prosecutor is trying to indict, so he is a pretty tough grand juror. He told me he doesn’t get asked to join grand juries anymore. The prosecutors didn’t want to have to deal with someone, especially a defense attorney, questioning their presentations to a grand jury.
Enjoy,
Steven
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/147 "2005-10-04T17:19:33Z")
> [@Twin](#):
>
> Why wasn’t this charge made originally?
Different grand jury?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/148 "2005-10-04T17:32:42Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#):
>
> This seems rather dismissive of the judgement of grand juries. How often do grand juries decide \*not \* to indict the target of the prosecutor’s investigation?
Very _very_ seldom - thus the saying about how a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for the murder of Abraham Lincoln. It’s so rare that a grand jury that refuses to indict a case the prosecutor wants indicted is known as a “runaway.”
Note that this is not the same as a grand jury returning a “no bill.” That happens somewhat more frequently, but those events are in line with the prosecutor’s desire. For example, say you’ve got a self-defense shooting. The prosecutor doesn’t want to prosecute, but the family of the victim is screaming. So he places the facts in front of a grand jury and lets them return a no-bill. That proves he did his job, and, hey, there’s nothing more to be done - the grand jury didn’t indict.
But a grand jury actually not returning an indictment that the prosecutor wanted? Very very rare.
---
### Author:  [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/149 "2005-10-04T17:45:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Mr. Delay’s attorney fees, expended in an effort to defend himself, will no doubt be substantial. Even if the charges don’t stick, he is not entitled to recover those costs from anyone.
Is it not possible that DeLay can set up a legal defense fund, a la Clintons and Whitewater? Also, wasn’t he paying his wife $500,000 /year as a consultant from his campaign funds? If so, maybe they can afford counsel.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/150 "2005-10-04T17:46:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Do you really doubt he’ll find a way anyway? A lot of people with a lot of money owe him a lot of favors.
What of it? If I send Mr. Delay $1000 to defray legal costs defending a charge that should never have been brought, my injury is slightly less outrageous, I suppose, since I assumed the burden voluntarily. But the fact that criminal charges were brought without a good-faith basis is outrageous, nonetheless.
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> And how often does a prosecutor fail to do his homework so spectacularly that a grand jury would think there was nothing there?
Very seldom, for two reasons. First, of course, is the fact that the vast majority of prosecutors approach their jobs in good faith… and I have no reason to believe that the present case is an exception to that rule. The cases that the grand jury sees are, for that reason, almost always cases that the prosecutor believes he can ultimately win at trial. They are much stronger than the simple “probable cause” required.
Secondly, the rules of the grand jury are heavily weighted in favor of the prosecutor. The accused may not even have a right to testify in his defense. If he does, he does not have the right an attorney on hand. (He may, if he wishes, pause the proceedings and leave to consult with his attorney, but his attorney is not permitted in the grand jury room). The prosecutor poses whatever questions he likes; no judge is there to rule on the admissibility of questions. There is no cross-examination to bring out “the rest of the story.”
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/151 "2005-10-04T17:48:18Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#):
>
> Is it not possible that DeLay can set up a legal defense fund, a la Clintons and Whitewater? Also, wasn’t he paying his wife $500,000 /year as a consultant from his campaign funds? If so, maybe they can afford counsel.
What of it? Even if he’s Bill Gates, married to Oprah Winfrey, and adopting Warren Buffett, what does that have to do with it? If we are talking about a charge that was brought without a good-faith belief in the case, it’s absolutely outrageous, no matter how much or little it costs him.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/152 "2005-10-04T17:49:46Z")
You nice liberal folks ought to listen to yourselves. How is it that all your concern for fascist government actions vanishes when the theoretical target of those actions is Tom Delay?
---
### Author:  [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/153 "2005-10-04T18:01:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> If - if - the prosecutor obtained this indictment without a good-faith belief in the ultimate guilt of the accused, it’s no relief that he followed proper channels. The grand jury is composed of non-lawyers; they follow a prosecutor’s lead. To obtain an indictment, a prosecutor need only present probable cause; still, a prosecutor who KNOWS, or should know, that he can never provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt abuses his position if he brings an indictment.
>
> Of course, if he has a good faith belief that he can prove guilt, THEN all’s right with the world.
Absolutely right (although your final sentence strays a bit – good faith belief in actual guilt, _plus_ good faith belief that he can prove it).
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/154 "2005-10-04T18:08:04Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#):
>
> Is it not possible that DeLay can set up a legal defense fund…
[Rep. Tom DeLay’s Legal Defense Fund Hits $1 Million](http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0201-11.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Feb, 2005
> House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund has raised more than $999,000 since it was founded in 2000. Current and former members of Congress and their political action committees (PACs) contributed $174,500 in the last quarter of 2004, representing 69 percent of the $254,250 collected by the fund during the period, according to a Public Citizen analysis. The same group contributed almost as much to DeLay’s legal fund in the last three months of 2004 as it did in the previous four years. Contributions less than $250 do not need to be publicly disclosed.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/155 "2005-10-04T18:13:51Z")
> [@shelbo](#):
>
> Absolutely right (although your final sentence strays a bit – good faith belief in actual guilt, _plus_ good faith belief that he can prove it).
Well, two different kinds of abuses here.
A prosecutor that indicts believing in the actual guilt, but knowing he’ll never prove it at trial, is gaming the system – he’s substituting the financial and publicity punishments of an indictment for the actual punishment mandated by law. Playing God, so to speak, perhaps with a clear conscience. But it’s still wrong.
And of course a prosecutor that indicts without a good-faith belief in actual guilt is simply scum.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/156 "2005-10-04T18:25:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Well, two different kinds of abuses here.
>
> A prosecutor that indicts believing in the actual guilt, but knowing he’ll never prove it at trial, is gaming the system – he’s substituting the financial and publicity punishments of an indictment for the actual punishment mandated by law. Playing God, so to speak, perhaps with a clear conscience. But it’s still wrong.
>
> And of course a prosecutor that indicts without a good-faith belief in actual guilt is simply scum.
And what reason, specifically, do you have to suspect Earle is guilty of either abuse in his prosecution of DeLay? Or do you?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/157 "2005-10-04T19:39:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> What of it?
:shrug: \*You \* made the comment about his inability to recover his legal costs legally. I responded. If you’re now backtracking, that’s fine, just say so, okay?
> [@](#):
>
> Very seldom, for two reasons.
That question was _rhetorical_. Of course prosecutors normally do their homework first. :rolleyes:
> [@](#):
>
> You nice liberal folks ought to listen to yourselves. How is it that all your concern for fascist government actions vanishes when the theoretical target of those actions is Tom Delay?
How is it that you’re concluding that Earle’s efforts are “fascist”? BTW, DeLay is not a “theoretical” target.
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/158 "2005-10-04T19:48:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> And what reason, specifically, do you have to suspect Earle is guilty of either abuse in his prosecution of DeLay? Or do you?
**Bricker** already addressed that point.
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> the vast majority of prosecutors approach their jobs in good faith… and I have no reason to believe that the present case is an exception to that rule.
Enjoy,
Steven
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/159 "2005-10-04T19:52:26Z")
> [@Mtgman](#):
>
> **Bricker** already addressed that point.
No, he said what \*might \* constitute it _if it existed_. He has \*not \* addressed the question of why he thinks it exists, or what he thinks it consists of. All he’s done is to smear Earle by insinuation, in a manner DeLay would be proud of.
---
### Author:  [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)
#### Post date: [October 4, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028/160 "2005-10-04T19:59:06Z")
He said he has no reason to believe Earle is acting in bad faith. This would logically preclude either or the types of abuses he listed.
Enjoy,
Steven
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028.md?page=7)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-delay-going-down/298028.md?page=9)