DeLay lawyers subpeona Earle

[RightIsWrong]

DonVito (or anyone else that might know), can they actually do this? Is there an exception in the law that would allow this to take place or is this an inherent right that is just very, very sparingly used?

DeLay Lawyers Subpoena District Attorney

By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawyers for indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on Tuesday subpoenaed the prosecuting Texas district attorney in an effort to show he acted improperly with grand jurors.

The subpoena for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, filed in Austin, asked that the prosecutor and two of his assistants appear in court to explain their conduct.

The lawyers previously had filed a motion asking for dismissal of the conspiracy and money-laundering charges against DeLay, who stepped aside as House majority leader because of the indictment.

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

Earle had no immediate comment on the subpoena.

DeGuerin wants Earle to answer 12 questions about conversations he had with grand jurors, including whether the prosecutor became angry when a grand jury decided against an indictment of DeLay and why the decision was not publicly released.

He also wants to know the details of Earle's conversation with William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges and whose term has since ended.

"If you did nothing improper, you should not be concerned about answering these questions," DeGuerin said in his letter to Earle.

Earle, leading a Texas campaign finance investigation that indicted DeLay and two political associates, went to three grand juries. He presented evidence on DeLay's alleged role in funneling corporate money to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The first grand jury indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges, the second failed to indict and the third indicted him on an allegation of money laundering. DeLay has said he is innocent of wrongdoing.

DeLay has accused Earle - a Democrat - of pursuing the case against him for political reasons. Earle has denied any political motives.

In a motion filed last week, the defense team said that from Sept. 29 through Oct. 3, Earle and his staff "unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations and attempted to browbeat and coerce" the grand jury that refused to indict DeLay.

The motion said Earle then attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure of the refusal, and also "incited" the foreman of the first grand jury to violate grand jury secrecy by talking publicly about the case - in an effort to influence grand jurors still sitting.

The lawyers said Earle then spoke about the case with members of the first grand jury, whose work was finished, to get their opinion of what they might have done if they had known their conspiracy indictment was flawed - as defense attorneys alleged.

Earle then submitted the grand jury opinions to the third grand jury to persuade it to hand down the money laundering indictment, the defense team contended.

The indictments against DeLay triggered a House Republican rule that forced him to step aside - at least temporarily - from his post as majority leader.

Both indictments of DeLay focused on an alleged scheme to move money around and conceal the use of corporate contributions to support Texas Republican legislative candidates. State law prohibits use of corporate donations to support or oppose state candidates, allowing the money to go only for administrative expenses.

DeGuerin is asking for all documents, notes, telephone records and other relevant materials from Earle's staff.

"I am determined to put on record the steps taken by you and your staff to obtain a replacement indictment against my client, Tom DeLay," DeGuerin said in a letter to the prosecutor.

 

[Harvey]

DeLay is playing hardball, but with any luck, regardless of how the worm squrims, he's going down.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Harvey
DeLay is playing hardball, but with any luck, regardless of how the worm squrims, he's going down.

That is, if he's guilty. I'd like to see him convicted as much as you, but only if the accusations are true. We wouldn't want to crucify political figures on trumped-up charges, would we?

 

[Jhhnn]

DeGeurin is just making a grandstand play out of the usual rightwing attack on the messenger.

I'm sure he'll use every trick in the book, and maybe a few never dreamed of- basic "kitchen sink" defense strategy.

It's standard practice with a deep pockets client- try everything, even if you know it won't work- it all generates fees, and DeLay Inc. can obviously afford them... it also gives the client the will to fight, so that the fees keep coming in...

 

[glenn1]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeLay is playing hardball, but with any luck, regardless of how the worm squrims, he's going down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is, if he's guilty. I'd like to see him convicted as much as you, but only if the accusations are true. We wouldn't want to crucify political figures on trumped-up charges, would we?

IMHO, both allegations are likely true - DeLay is guilty as charged, and the prosecution was likely politically motivated and legally compromised. Maybe we can get a two-fer and have both DeLay and Earle get the axe.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: glenn1
IMHO, both allegations are likely true - DeLay is guilty as charged, and the prosecution was likely politically motivated and legally compromised. Maybe we can get a two-fer and have both DeLay and Earle get the axe.

Which leads to the question, which is worse?

I must say I agree completely.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: glenn1
IMHO, both allegations are likely true - DeLay is guilty as charged, and the prosecution was likely politically motivated and legally compromised. Maybe we can get a two-fer and have both DeLay and Earle get the axe.

Which leads to the question, which is worse?

I must say I agree completely.

There isn't really anything wrong with a politcally motived prosecution of a polition.

 

[andrewbabcock]

The problem with this case is that this prosecutor has done this before and failed 12-13 years ago. This is one of the few liberal places in Texas and this is a stupid trial. What they are accusing him of was not even a crime at the time they say he committed it. Earle might be the only liberal prosecutor in Texas. Furthermore, no one finds it interesting to note that Delay was not indicted the first time Earled presented this to a grand jury? Thats a trivial detail my bad...

 

[alchemize]

DeLay is probably crooked - but I think this charge is a farce, at least from the evidence presented I've seen so far.

 

[glenn1]

There isn't really anything wrong with a politcally motived prosecution of a polition.

The Clinton impeachment affair was politically motivated as well. Although he was guilty as hell of lying under oath (before anyone starts saying it, his actions were *NOT* perjury), the subsequent events including the Senate trial were completely over the top stupid. That's why politically-motivated prosecutions are typically not a good thing, they seem to make prosecutors lose their minds and any sense of reasonableness.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: smack Down
There isn't really anything wrong with a politcally motived prosecution of a polition.

Sure there is. It's called no case and lots of wasted taxpayer money.

 

[andrewbabcock]

This whole thing IS a gigantic farce. Delay is going to be found not guilty. The first grand jury wouldn't indict him, why would this one convict him? Its just another way for the left to get back at the right because it can make them feel better when the overwhelming majority of Americans have moved far away from the left...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

My take on this subpoena (shared by my mother, a judge for 22 years) is that it's ridiculous grandstanding by DeGuerin. I would be very surprised if any judge compels Earle to appear or release any of the requested documents, and so it's ultimately just being done so that DeGuerin will, when Earle refuses to testify or turn over documents, be able to say "See! He won't even appear to answer my charges!"

I am not prejudging DeLay's guilt or innocence, nor am I endorsing Earle's prosecution, but there is a lot of misinformation in this thread, and in every discussion I have heard about this case.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

To answer the original question posed, I believe Texas allows for subpoenas duces tecum (that is, subpoenas issued by attorneys, rather than judges), but normally the court has to get involved when and if the witness declines to honor the subpoena, as I assume Earle will do here. I can't seriously imagine a judge compelling the releases DeGuerin has requested.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: andrewbabcock
This whole thing IS a gigantic farce. Delay is going to be found not guilty. The first grand jury wouldn't indict him, why would this one convict him? Its just another way for the left to get back at the right because it can make them feel better when the overwhelming majority of Americans have moved far away from the left...

I don't think it is a big deal that the first grand jury refused to indict him. It just means 7 out of 18 people in texas have there heads up there ass. Not really surprising considering they elected bush.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: andrewbabcock
This whole thing IS a gigantic farce. Delay is going to be found not guilty. The first grand jury wouldn't indict him, why would this one convict him? Its just another way for the left to get back at the right because it can make them feel better when the overwhelming majority of Americans have moved far away from the left...

I don't think you understand the process or facts of this case on even the most superficial level. On the bright side, that places you firmly in the majority in this thread.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: andrewbabcock
This whole thing IS a gigantic farce. Delay is going to be found not guilty. The first grand jury wouldn't indict him, why would this one convict him? Its just another way for the left to get back at the right because it can make them feel better when the overwhelming majority of Americans have moved far away from the left...

I don't think you understand the process or facts of this case on even the most superficial level. On the bright side, that places you firmly in the majority in this thread.

I think he is right on this one. I heard the process of "money laundering" he has been accussed of. As long as his accountants did not screw up(mixing corperate and private donations), everything he did is going to be perfectly legal and a common practise by parties on top of that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: charrison

I think he is right on this one. I heard the process of "money laundering" he has been accussed of. As long as his accountants did not screw up(mixing corperate and private donations), everything he did is going to be perfectly legal and a common practise by parties on top of that.

I'm speaking of the procedure involved, not the substance of the charges. Andrew is misstating what happened at the first grand jury, and, more to the point, seems to believe DeLay will be TRIED by the second grand jury, which is akin to saying the police who arrest a drunk driver will go on to serve as the judge at his trial.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

I think he is right on this one. I heard the process of "money laundering" he has been accussed of. As long as his accountants did not screw up(mixing corperate and private donations), everything he did is going to be perfectly legal and a common practise by parties on top of that.

I'm speaking of the procedure involved, not the substance of the charges. Andrew is misstating what happened at the first grand jury, and, more to the point, seems to believe DeLay will be TRIED by the second grand jury, which is akin to saying the police who arrest a drunk driver will go on to serve as the judge at his trial.

I think his point still remains that Earles charges are very weak.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: charrison

I think his point still remains that Earles charges are very weak.

I guess I don't see why I would give any deference to the legal opinions of a person who doesn't know the difference between a grand jury and a jury. Lay-opinions on the law tend to be, frankly, pretty worthless, particularly when they are just rehashed from Rush/Fox News/Hannity et al.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Its just another way for the left to get back at the right because it can make them feel better when the overwhelming majority of Americans have moved far away from the left..."

Yeh, right. I suppose that's why Bush's re-election margin was the slimmest of any president in the last 100 years...even riding on the greatest political windfall since pearl harbor...

DeLay's attorneys are simply attempting to keep him from facing the charges, by any means possible... Which is smart. DeLay is in a very delicate position wrt his alleged co-conspirators- if they're convicted, then the impetus to roll over on him is acute. If he tries to get ahead of them in the trial sequence, go to trial first in an attempt to avoid that, they'll smell a rat and roll over immediately...

I suspect that the evidence against Ellis and Colyandro is stronger and more clear cut than against DeLay, somthing that they're all acutely aware of... They've both tried to postpone their own cases in an attempt to let DeLay escape out the backside via the statute of limitations. In a worst case scenario, ratting out DeLay wouldn't hurt him too badly, since he'd be immune from prosecution... while still obtaining some leniency for them...

Right, wrong, or indifferent, Earle's maneuvering has rendered that impossible, putting them all in the pressure cooker together... All of them knowing he who rats first rats best... So the best bet is to attempt to have the indictments against DeLay squashed...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

I think his point still remains that Earles charges are very weak.

I guess I don't see why I would give any deference to the legal opinions of a person who doesn't know the difference between a grand jury and a jury. Lay-opinions on the law tend to be, frankly, pretty worthless, particularly when they are just rehashed from Rush/Fox News/Hannity et al.

With your legal background I can understand that. At the same time you should have little understanding for earles grand jury fishing.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
DonVito (or anyone else that might know), can they actually do this? Is there an exception in the law that would allow this to take place or is this an inherent right that is just very, very sparingly used?

Clearly they just did.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Maybe we can get a two-fer and have both DeLay and Earle get the axe.

Based on the known facts, I'm as sure as I can be, before the trial, DeLay's guilty. He's a known slime ball, and he's already been bitch slapped three times by the House Ethics Committee.

What do you have against Earle? Do you know something I don't? He's a Democrat, but he's filed far more cases against other Democrats than against Republicans.

 

[Jhhnn]

Clearly, zendari, they're making an attempt, it's not a fait accompli. I rather suspect that this will be ruled as an improper use of the Defense's power of subpoena. Earle's conduct is a separate matter entirely, extremely tangential to the indictments that currently exist. The chances of this making them go away are almost nil.

But it helps generate those all important fees... and attempts to portray DeLay as the victim to the potential jury pool.