Tom DeLay Hammers Ronnie Earle

Stingray: A blog for Salty Christians ^ | October 12, 2005 | Michael McCullough

[DallasMike]

On Tuesday, October 10th, Tom DeLay's lawyers tried to serve Travis County District Attorney Ronnie with a subpoena and a Motion to Quash the Indictment on the Basis of Prosectorial Misconduct, but Earle allegedly refused to accept it, then later claimed that he had voluntarily accepted it even though the subpoena was flawed. The subpoena allesges misconduct with grand jurors by Earle.

DeGuerin said acceptance of the subpoena was voluntary Tuesday because it had not been stamped by a court official, but added that the defense team would go through the court procedure Wednesday and redeliver it. He said Earle, district attorney for Travis County, would then be obligated to accept the subpoena, but could file a motion to have it dismissed.

The defense lawyer, who is trying to get the indictments dismissed, said an assistant district attorney also refused to accept her subpoena, but a second assistant accepted the subpoena delivered to him. Acceptance simply involves signing a paper acknowledging delivery.

The subpoenas asked that the prosecutor and the two assistants appear in court or submit to a deposition in which the defense lawyers would question them.

DeGuerin also asked that grand jurors be released from their secrecy oath so they could answer questions about the prosecutor's conduct.

DeLay's defense team is interested in whether Earle became angry when a grand jury refuse to indict Delay and why that decision was not publicly released, as is normal in such situations. DeLay also wants to learn details of Earle's discussions with William Gibson, who was foreman of a grand jury that indicted Delay and who gave interviews to reporters. There have been 3 grand juries convened by Earle regarding Tom DeLay:  the first indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges, the second refused to indict, and the third indicted DeLay on charges of money laundering. According to the Houston Chronicle:

DeLay has argued in court papers that once Earle realized the conspiracy charge might be dismissed, he scrambled to get new indictments before the statute of limitations ran out.

On Sept. 30, the second grand jury declined to return indictments against DeLay and two associates.

But on Oct. 3, a newly sworn grand jury indicted DeLay and the associates on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money related to the corporate contributions.

DeLay's lawyers have alleged that Earle unlawfully talked to members of the first grand jury after they were discharged to get their opinion of the money laundering charge and presented that information to the new grand jury to get them to issue those charges.

"During the five-day period of Sept. 29, 2005, to Oct. 3, 2005, Ronnie Earle and his staff engaged in an extraordinarily irregular attempt to contrive a viable charge and get a substitute indictment of Tom DeLay before the expiration of the statute of limitations on Oct. 3, 2005," according to a brief filed Tuesday by DeLay.

In the letter delivered to Earle yesterday, DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin stated:

I am determined to put of record the steps taken by you and your staff to obtain a replacement indictment against my client, Tom DeLay during the five day period mentioned above. The [lISt indictment for "conspiracy to violate the Texas Election Code," charged a crime that did not exist in Texas law. I have filed a motion to dismiss the later indictment on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and with those subpoenas seek evidence in support of that motion. I will soon file additional motions.

In the meantime, however, it would expedite our inquiry if you would agree to an immediate deposition to answer the questions set out below, and, given the highly public nature of this matter, I believe it would be in the interest of justice. Since it appears you have already violated the grand jury secrecy laws (by discussing pending grand jury matters with citizens who were no longer serving as grand jurors and by encouraging form Grand Jury Foreman William Gibson to speak to the press) your answers to questions about those conversations are not protected. Foreman William Gibson's extensive public discussion of the case, which he says you approved, has already revealed information about Grand Jury deliberations. The media has reported several conversations with grand jurors on these matters; thus you should not hide behind the grand jury secrecy law.

Since it appears you have already violated the grand jury secrecy laws (by discussing pending grand jury matters with citizens who were no longer serving as grand jurors and by encouraging form Grand Jury Foreman William Gibson to speak to the press) your answers to questions about those conversations are not protected. Foreman William Gibson's extensive public discussion of the case, which he says you approved, has already revealed information about Grand Jury deliberations. The media has reported several conversations with grand jurors on these matters; thus you should not hide behind the grand jury secrecy law.

***

If you did nothing improper you should not be concerned about answering these questions. I urge you and your staff to cooperate in my effort to quickly and fairly reconstruct the events of the five day period. Eventually, all the information will come out. It always does. In such cases it is always better for public officials to voluntarily disclose, and do it quickly, rather than to be forced to do so by a court of law.

I trust you are aware of the provisions of TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 20.02(d) that permit release of grand jury information upon the showing of a particularized need. This letter is attached as an exhibit to our Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Information pursuant to Art. 20.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure...

I also remind you and your staff to preserve all documents and avoid any conversations among yourselves or with the other potential witnesses that might interfere with our quest for the truth. Needless to say, our allegation of prosecutorial misconduct concerns due process and fairness for the accused. I can think of no particularized need that is of more importance in our system of criminal justice.

National Review has this to say regarding the developments:

In one way, Earle opened himself up to the attack by choosing to include almost no evidence against DeLay, not only in the first indictment of DeLay on conspiracy charges, but also in a hastily drawn second indictment on money-laundering charges handed up on October 3 (many of the crimes alleged in the indictment are said to have occurred on October 4, 2002, and Earle was apparently rushing to press charges before the three-year statute of limitations expired). Indeed, one can read both documents and still be unable to discern what Earle has actually accused DeLay of doing, other than being part of something that allegedly violated a Texas law against corporate political contributions.

It was that very lack of specificity — coupled with the arcane nature of the law involved — that allowed DeLay to turn the indictments into a question about Ronnie Earle. If there had been clear, solid evidence of misconduct in the charges, then the public and the press would have had actual facts to work with, some grounds on which to say that DeLay did wrong. But there wasn't. So now it is the congressman versus the prosecutor.

Whatever the merits of the case may be (and at this moment, they seem doubtful) there is no denying that DeLay -- also known as "The Hammer" -- has turned the tables on Ronnie Earle. Earle has long been out of control (see my posts here and here). He's a member of the radical left, yes, but his many failures often don't even relate to partisanship. Once he has an axe to grind against a public figure -- such as a former election opponent -- he goes after them with all the gusto that a crooked prosecutor can muster.

As Media Lies says"  We have a saying here in Texas:  Never bring a knife to a gunfight."

Related posts:
   Ronnie Earle and Dirty Politics
   Ronnie Earle:  Earnest prosecutor or political hack?

[DallasMike]

       

 

 

        Stingray blogsite: Conservative Christian Commentary