Grand Jury Foreman Defends DeLay Indictment (More Impropriety in Travis County Grand Jury)

News 8 Austin ^ | 9/29/2005 | Hermelinda Vargas

[pepperhead]

And remember there were five grand juries BEFORE this one that didn't think there was sufficient evidence.

But they didn't have a 76 year old former sheriff's deputy as the foreman. ;) Any guesses what county he was the deputy in? And Mayberry don't count.

[pepperhead]

The statement begs the question, what is a "House majority man."

A testament to the foreman's education.

[pepperhead]

News 8 Austin's Hermelinda Vargas, left, interviews William Gibson, who did not want his face shown.

I think he just might find out it doesn't work that way. If he didn't want people to see his face, he should have keep his mouth shut.

[pepperhead]

If Earle had no such squeal evidence, than the grand jury was not asking enough questions.

I am guessing the only question the 76 year old foreman asked is when can he go to the bathroom.

[pepperhead]

DeLay's attorneys will move to have the case heard in Fort Bend County and tried by the D.A there. The change of venue will be granted by the court. It won't be in Earle's hands much longer.

I have seen plenty of cases moved and the original prosecutors stayed on. I don't think another D.A. wants this case. And I don't think Earle would give up his case. Well at least not till after the judge rules against him on some evidence.

[pepperhead]

In other words, what Congressman DeLay is alleged to have done is not a crimnal offense.

Not only that, but he wasn't running the day to day operations. And there was lawyers making sure what they did followed the campaign law at the time.

[pepperhead]

Gibson is probably a close cousin of Louisiana politicians.

Maybe he was one of the phantom cops down there.;)

[Carolinamom]

I'm interested in your take on this man's action.

[Congressman Billybob]

If Texas law is the same as other jurisdictions I am familiar with, it is a crime for ANYONE, including a member of the Grand Jury itself, to reveal what happened in that room.

John / Billybob

[SpringheelJack]

You're telling me that it's proper when he's only heard one side of the story?

Welcome to indictments. I know there's a law, I'm just doubtful anything said here in this article violates it. It goes without saying that the foreman of a jury which issued the indictment thought the action was warranted. And that's all that gets said here.

[ConservativeGreek]

The Grand Jury also doesn't have a clue as to which pieces of "evidence" will actually be admissable and which will not. That's up to the trial judge.


Forgot that.
Excellent point!

[vox_freedom]

Ronnie Earle lied like a dog to get those indictments...

Now wait just a minute, would this dog lie?

[supercat]

How can a judge order a jury to make any finding or verdict?

If a judge, looking at all of the evidence suggesting guilt in the most favorable light, and looking at all evidence suggesting innocence in the least favorable light, determines that there is no way a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty, then the judge can order that the defendant be found innocent.

This rule exists, in part, to protect unsympathetic defendants from jurors who want to convict them because they don't like them, rather than because of any actual evidence against them. Further, in examining cases on appeal, one of the questions an appeals court judge must answer is whether the record (possibly after being adjusted based upon included/excluded evidence) would possibly support a finding of guilt. If the record is changed (typically as a result of including/excluding evidence) and there would be no way a reasonable jury could find that the revised record favors conviction, the defendant is acquitted. If the changed record is such that a reasonable jury that found the defendant guilty on the original record might find him not-guilty on the revised record, the case is sent to a new jury for a new trial.

If a jury were to find a defendant guilty but an appeals court judge would find there wasn't enough evidence for a reasonable jury to have done so, the case would likely get thrown out. For a trial-court judge to direct a not-guilty verdict is a prophylactic measure to prevent such a waste of time and effort.