Prosecutor says DeLay's justice skewed

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Houston Chronicle/Associated Press

July 14, 2007, 12:09AM
Prosecutor says DeLay's justice skewed
Associated Press

AUSTIN — A Texas prosecutor said in court filings Friday that the state's highest criminal appeals court created a "separate — but not necessarily equal — system of justice" by refusing to reinstate a conspiracy charge against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle wants the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its decision.
Last month, the court refused to reinstate charges against DeLay and two former aides of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

A state district judge threw out that charge after defense lawyers argued that the law DeLay is accused of violating in 2002 wasn't written until 2003.

A regional appeals court upheld the judge's decision. Prosecutors appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Republican-controlled panel ruled 5-4 in favor of DeLay and his co-defendants, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.




Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4967510.html

[Kagemusha]

1. The chaff seems completely irrelevant.

Either the actions DeLay was being prosecuted for precede the 2003 law or they don't. If they do, it's a constitutional ex post facto law question. Or am I somehow missing something here and that doesn't apply to Texas state law somehow?

[Igel]

2. Agreed.

We must both be missing something.

The first time I read about the charges and the counterclaims, I couldn't understand how Earl could even try to make his argument with a straight face. When the charge was thrown it, it struck me as a "um, yeah, what did you expect?" moment.

The media can't be explaining Earl's case accurately. Like that's a surprise.

[acmavm]

3. That's what I've been wondering and thinking about. DeLay either

committed his crimes BEFORE or AFTER the law was enacted. What question can there be about that? You have to have a date(s) that the criminal acts were committed and obviously laws cannot be applied retroactively.

I think Earle is/would/should be smart enough to keep hammering on a hopeless cause, right? What am I missing?

[hang a left]

4. perhaps they were committed before AND after

hence the 5-4 decision.

[Kagemusha]

5. Good a theory as any.

Sadly I have to agree with the previous poster who said the media was just not reporting this very accurately. Not easy for us to assess this while in the dark.