Top court agrees to review overturned Tom DeLay conviction

[Gothmog]

This is potentially great news. The Court of Appeals decision was a 2 to 1 opinion based on the theory that Texas law only applies to laundering cash and not checks. The Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to review the decision that overturned the DeLay conviction http://www.chron.com/news/article/Top-court-agrees-to-review-overturned-Tom-DeLay-5331253.php?cmpid=hpbn

AUSTIN - The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday agreed to review whether a lower court correctly decided last fall to toss out the prison sentence handed to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on money-laundering charges.

The state's highest court on criminal matters announced that it would accept a petition asking it to consider whether a 2-1 decision by the Third Court of Appeals overturning DeLay's criminal case conviction was appropriate.

The appellate court in September 2013 tossed a high-profile jury verdict, ruling that "the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay's convictions." In a dissent, the lone Democrat on the three-judge panel argued the evidence for a conviction was sufficient enough to convince a rational jury that criminal conduct had taken place.

This could be great news because there are rumors that DeLay is planning to run for Congress in my district in 2016. I really hope that the court does the right thing

[n2doc]

1. Time to squish the bug-man n/t

[Gothmog]

2. Agreed

I live in his district. There are rumors floating around that he is planning on running for his old seat in 2016.

[freshwest]

3. I hope so, too. He's a disgrace. n/t

[rhett o rick]

4. What is the make up of that court? nm

[Gothmog]

6. 8 to 1

See Juanita Jean's article in the post below

[Gothmog]

5. Juanita Jean is very happy about this development

I could have predicted this. Juanita Jean and I both live in Tom DeLay's old district. I moved out here after he resigned from Congress but Juanita Jean has been a thorn in DeLay's side for a very long time http://www.juanitajean.com/2014/03/19/i-have-been-living-right/

Y’all, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a petition of discretionary review to review the reversal of Tom DeLay criminal conviction.

Honey, I have been paying the right preacher!

This means that the fat lady ain’t sang yet, and Tom DeLay’s pronouncements that he’s “been found innocent” is wrong, wrong, wrong. It could be overturned.

Now, here’s the fun part. There are 9 judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Six months ago, all 9 of them were Republicans but one judge, Lawrence Meyers, just switched to being a Democrat because Republicans make his skin crawl. For the court to grant this petition, at least 5 of them, or maybe all nine, voted that this reversal needs some attention. And that means some of the 8 Republicans is probably pretty sick of seeing Tom DeLay strut around like he’s never done anything wrong.

The state’s highest court on criminal matters announced that it would accept a petition asking it to consider whether a 2-1 decision by the Third Court of Appeals overturning DeLay’s criminal case conviction was appropriate.

The appellate court in September 2013 tossed a high-profile jury verdict, ruling that “the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions.” In a dissent, the lone Democrat on the three-judge panel argued the evidence for a conviction was sufficient enough to convince a rational jury that criminal conduct had taken place.

This is great news for the State of Texas, the Travis County DA’s office, and Lady Justice.

And me. This is great news for me because I think Tom DeLay is a bigger crook than we’ll ever know.

Juanita Jean and her husband were at Tom DeLay's sentencing. I really hope that DeLay serves some time.

[rhett o rick]

7. Please forgive my skepticism. I want him to serve time and I dont know shite about this,

but I dont trust Republicans. Maybe they want to review it so they can rule for upholding the 2-1 decision to prevent a future court from overturning. Again, when it comes to republicans, I am very skeptical.

[Gothmog]

8. It is a major deal for the Court of Criminal Appeals to accept this appeal

The Texas Supreme Court for civil cases and the Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal cases have the right to select the cases that they want to hear. It takes five votes for the court to agree to hear a case. The fact that the Court of Criminal Appeals accepted this case is a big deal.

The Court of Appeals decision that is being appealed was weak based on the concept that under Texas law one could not be convicted of money laundering if they used a check. That theory is crazy and the Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed to look at it.

Now, the Court of Criminal Appeals could still let DeLay off. I am now more hopeful that DeLay will serve some prison time.

[Gothmog]

9. Here is a decent article on the appeal

This is a decent article regarding this appeal http://www.gustitislaw.com/personal-thoughts/thomas-dale-delay-v-the-state-of-texas/

In November 2010, former United States House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, was convicted in Travis County Texas of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. On September 19, 2013 theTom Delay Texas Third Court of Appeals (COA) reversed the Delay conviction and entered an order of acquittal by a 2-1 vote. The COA ruled there was legally insufficient evidence to convict and, therefore, Delay’s constitutional right to “due process” was violated when the jury found him guilty. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) decision this week to grant discretionary review is fascinating. I’m wondering whether the CCA is giving the lower court political cover, or whether there is a genuine issue at hand.

The following facts were not in dispute. Delay was a board member of Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a Texas general purpose political committee. Delay helped TRMPAC solicit and raise funds for political activities. During the 2002 election cycle, TRMPAC received donations from corporations in excess of $190k. From the TRMPAC bank account in which the corporate funds were deposited, TRMPAC issued a check for $190k to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), a component of the Republican National Committee. The RNSEC then deposited the check from TRMPAC into an account created to isolate and hold corporate contributions (a “soft money” account). About two weeks later, the RNSEC issued checks to seven Texas candidates amounting to $190k from a different bank account which did not include corporate contributions. Said another way, a “hard money” account. The RNSEC never transferred funds between these two accounts. Under Texas Election Code law, it was illegal to channel corporate (soft money) political contributions to individual candidates running for office.

Texas prosecutors alleged the funds from TRMPAC were “dirty.” In other words, they were the “proceeds of criminal activity.” Consequently, they alleged the subsequent fund transfer to the RNSEC was an attempt to “clean” the funds (money laundering) before transferring them to Texas candidates. Delay’s defense was that none of the fund transfers were illegal and, consequently, the funds were never “proceeds of criminal activity” to support the money laundering charges. Nonetheless, the jury convicted. However, the COA reversed and held the evidence never proved the funds transferred were the proceeds of criminal activity. The state prosecutors, predictably, asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review the COA decision. The state argued the COA had “invaded the province of the jury” by holding there was insufficient evidence to convict Delay of a crime.

Now the CCA has the case. The first thought coming to mind was whether the CCA wanted to give the lower Texas court some political cover. But they could have done that by refusing the state’s petition for discretionary review. On the other hand, maybe a majority of CCA justices want Delay convicted on these facts. In any case, it’s an interesting case from a legal, factual, and political perspective. I look forward to the next court opinion.

It would have been easy for the CCA to duck this issue and not grant writ. It will be interesting to see what happens.