Posted on 09/27/2005 5:13:29 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
After Rep. David Graves was charged with drunken driving for a second time, he and his lawyer offered a surprising defense:
As a lawmaker, Graves cannot break the law — at least not while the Legislature is at work.
The Macon Republican is using an obscure provision in the state constitution to argue that he should not be prosecuted for a DUI he received in Cobb County in February, during the 2005 session of the General Assembly.
The centuries-old provision holds that a lawmaker cannot be arrested during sessions of the General Assembly, legislative committee meetings or while they're "in transit," except in cases of "treason, felony, or breach of the peace." Such provisions were generally written to protect lawmakers from political intimidation.
Cobb State Court Judge Irma B. Glover is expected to make public her ruling today on Graves' "legislative immunity" defense. His trial is set for today.
Graves — chairman of the House committee overseeing laws governing the alcohol industry — has said that on Feb. 15, he and other committee chairmen went from the Capitol to a dinner meeting, where they conferred about the status of legislation and plans for the next legislative day. His lawyer, William C. "Bubba" Head, argues Graves should have been granted immunity from arrest because he was leaving a gathering that was tantamount to a committee meeting, according to legal filings.
Gary Jones, the assistant solicitor in Cobb State Court assigned to prosecute the cases, said his office is fighting the contention.
"Just because you're having dinner with other politicians doesn't make it a committee meeting," Jones said. "They could be at a casino doing the same thing, and he could allege it was a committee meeting, even though they're gambling. Only in this case, they were drinking — which to me is another indication it was not a committee meeting."
The prosecutor said Graves could not remember details of the meeting such as whom he met with or which laws were discussed.
Neither Head nor Graves could not be reached for comment late Monday.
Graves, 47, is actually awaiting trial on two DUI charges, one from March 2004, when authorities say he ran a red light, and the one from Feb. 15, which occurred at a police roadblock in Vinings. So far he is claiming legislative immunity only in the latest case. If convicted on one or both charges, Graves faces possible fines, a short jail stint and perhaps the loss of his House committee chairmanship.
Georgia's legislative immunity provision has been part of its constitution since 1789. It's one of many across the country.
One of the early immunity laws, in Virginia, dates to a 17th-century incident in which the royal governor arrested a lawmaker to keep him from voting, according to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot newspaper.
But in recent years legislators and staffers have tried to use immunity laws to defend themselves against nonpolitical charges. In 1996, a Virginia judge rejected a legislative aide's immunity claim and convicted her of drunken driving. And in 2002, courts rejected a Wisconsin senator's attempt to use the provision to shield himself from charges of illegally raising campaign contributions.
In 1985, then-state Attorney General Michael Bowers weighed in on the topic in Georgia, issuing a legal opinion that the provision in the constitution might give legislators immunity from physical arrest. But, he concluded, "There is no constitutional immunity for members of the General Assembly from prosecution for speeding violations or other violations of criminal law."
Jones expects today's ruling will delay Graves' trial and won't be the last word on the immunity issue.
"I'm sure either side will appeal, which means we'll end up in the Supreme Court over this constitutional provision," he said.
I don't like it, but I am getting used to it.
I agree. This guy should take his medicine like a grownup and resign.
What REALLY needs to be done is to appeal that foolishly written law. Until then, the law must be respected, or declared "unconstitutional" in that state.
Where's the "GONG"? No immunity here, Graves. Pack your bags!
Interesting defense that won't fly. U.S. Congresspeoplem for example, have such immunity also, but only if they are on their way to participate in a vote. This looser interpretation of the Georgia law, not "obscure," has its real world component.
However I doubt this will fly. A federal or state legislator cannot be prevented from carrying out his or her responsibility to exercise the franchise given to him by the people he represents. The actions of a committee have less to do with that sacred franchise.
I guess if he were robbing a bank and shooting tellers, and then had to get to the floor for a vote, an officer would be compelled to use deadly force rather than arrest him.
So, fire his @$$ and THEN arrest him! Show 'em that we Pubs police our own!
"This is as lame as when Clinton tried to skate out of his legal problems by invoking his "active duty" status."
I was hoping they'd let him do it. We'd have court-martialed and convicted him in a heartbeat.
Graves needs to be reminded, however, that (as far as I know) DUI IS a felony. Jail time for him, too. Amicus Curae briefs filed by prominent Republican lawyers to support that turn of events.
It is clear that the quality of elected officials has deteriorated to the point of absurdity. We are being led in many places by the absolute bottom of the gene pool, the very invisible low end of the IQ curve.
That is a good topic of debate, as to its desirability and the consequences.
And we all know the ability of lawyers to defend pretty much anything.
But isn't it clear to the rest of the world that this ancient law and custom applies only to allow a legislator drunk or sober, to attend to his "duties"?
It was never intended, nor applied, to grant blanket immunity for criminal actions.
The clown still needs to pay the normal price for actions endangering the health and welfare of the general public (aside from his probable legislative crimes)!
Sound familiar? (Baiting for NM politician stories)
I have never seen nor understood it as being immunity from anything other than immediate arrest. When did that change?
Leaglly I think he has a point. I remember something like this from school. However if this was at night he wasn't going to Congress to vote, if it happened during the day it might be legally sound. Any lawyers want to comment?
If you have more than one clause in a law, then someone is bound to call it a "loophole." A cop that shoots a fool pointing a toy gun at him is protected by "loopholes." The 4th Amendment is a "loophole." PLease.
And some on this forum wonder why a lot of us have given up on the Republican party.
People probably don't ever consider how many laws are made, or how many times politicians are bought off while they are legally drunk, and beyond...
I knew it was that way for Democrats, but Republicans???
What a loser.
This country lost a lot when the practice of Tarring and Feathering went out of vogue.
He's pulling a Clinton...like when Bubba tried to say he couldn't be sued (Paula Jones case) because he was Commander-in-Chief and on active-duty at the time the suit was brought against him.
This guy needs to show some humility, resign and seek help with his obvious drinking problem.
Agreed...this guy is stuck on stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.