Tom DeLay's Attorneys Request Documents

The Associated Press via Yahoo News ^ | November 11, 2005 | April Castro

[new yorker 77]

AUSTIN, Texas - Rep. Tom DeLay's attorneys asked for internal documents from the local prosecutor, hoping to show he went after the powerful Republican despite opposition from grand juries.

Delay's attorneys asked Democratic District Attorney Ronnie Earle to provide any internal communications from his office that argued against indicting the former House majority leader.

Earle's office declined to comment on Thursday's written request from defense attorney Dick DeGuerin. The request asks for "internal notes, memoranda or documents which recommend against seeking an indictment against Tom DeLay."

The letter asks that Earle let the defense know "whether you will voluntarily produce these documents."

Delay's legal team hopes the documents will bolster their arguments that the money laundering and conspiracy charges against DeLay should be dropped.

Judge Pat Priest has scheduled a Nov. 22 conference to meet with attorneys.

DeLay was indicted on a conspiracy charge Sept. 28. A second grand jury considered the case after questions were raised about when the law on which the conspiracy charge was based went into effect, but the panel returned no indictment.

Days later, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering charges, which carry five years to life in prison on conviction.

Earle has said he went to the third grand jury after finding new evidence.

DeGuerin contends that Earle unlawfully participated in the second grand jury's deliberations to seek another indictment, and that Earle tried to "browbeat and coerce" grand jurors into filing criminal charges.

A House rule forced DeLay to step down from his post as majority leader after he was indicted.

[new yorker 77]

Earle is a fraud.

[Rosemont]

" A House rule forced DeLay to step down from his post as majority leader after he was indicted."

The MSM is incredibly stupid. It is a REPUBLICAN house rule. Dems have no such rule. Convenient oversight.

[DoughtyOne]

Doesn't a prosecutor have to share evidence with the defense? How else is the defense going to be able to adequately prepare for hearings and or a trial? Seems like Delay should have access to these materials.

[i_dont_chat]

DeLay has a really good attorney.

[Logical me]

Believe so, it is part of discovery.

[new yorker 77]

Yes. MSM bilge slimes this report.

[taxesareforever]

Earle is finding out fast that he is not the only one with attorney smarts and privileges.

[theDentist]

BTW: WHO is in his stead? I never heard the name.

[FormerACLUmember]

Tom DeLay is one Republican who is not testosterone challenged. (Thank God)

[rodguy911]

POst of the week, good job!!

[lt.america]

I think he is going to curse the day that he went down this course. It sounds like Delay's attorney is so far in his loop now, that Earle doesn't know which way is up or down.

[FormerACLUmember]

thank you and bump!

[middie]

Perhaps Texas has extensive discovery in criminal case. But I would very surprised if even very liberal discovery would go that far. The discovery rules generally relate only to facts to be used at trial, exculpatory evidence and tangiible evidence. It would be a most unusual discovery rule that permits investigatory argument to be disclosed. It is generally viewed as irrelevant as to who advocated for or against indictment. If this is a viable rule than logically it would expand to include the for-and-against discussions within the prosecutor's office itself. The indictment itself is the result of the investigatory process and the discussions of dissenters to the indictment are enclosed in the grand jury's vote.

While I am admittedly ignorant of Texas criminal procedure, my professional intuition tells me that the request is more of a press release than a genuine attempt to obtain discoverable exculpatory information.

[AndyJackson]

This is relevant because the defense claim is that this is a politically motivated indictment and that Earle strong-armed the grand juries (more than one). Since one indictment is for something that was not even an offense under Texas law, their is probable cause that political motivation overwhelmed professional judgment.

Second discovery can be pretty broad reaching being designed to develop evidence that can be used at trial.

Either their is evidence that some in the prosecutors office realised that the original indictment was very weak, or there wasn't. Either way, DeLay wins.

[middie]

Unless Texas has the strangest criminal procedural rules in the entire USA defense counsel isn't going to see any such document. It would be the same as a lawyer's ''work product'' that is always insulated from disclosure. There isn't a judge on the bench (at least in the other 49 states or on the federal bench) who would view intra-office communications within the prosecutor's staff or within a grand jury room as relevant or material to either proving a defendant's guilt or serving as exculpatory evidence. Testimony presented to the grand jury is often discoverable, but not the discussions among grand jurors and the prosecutors. There would be such a chilling effect among other folks summoned for grand jury duty that no person serving would be willing to discuss openly and candidly their opinions and views preceding a vote on whether to return an indictment or issue a ''No Bill.''

At first I thought this discovery request might be a press ploy, now I have no doubt that's exactly what it is.

[middie]

More---I have no dog in this fight and I'm approx. 1,100 from the fray. Thus, there's no even a hint of ideological orientation in my comments or loyalty to a congressman whom I don't know and in whom I don't the first ounce of interest in his guilt or non-guilt (there's a difference between innocence and non-guilt, ask a local lawyer).