The Case Against Tom Delay Still Simmers
January 11th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
After all the stir about Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle’s decision not to run again for re-election this year, it’s easy to forget that his office still has a few hot irons in the fire. One of those is the pending case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — which is tied together with cases against his former associates John Colyandro and Jim Ellis.
The race for Travis County DA features four prosecutors who all work within Earle’s office: Rosemary Lehmberg, Gary Cobb, Mindy Montford, and Rick Reed. Earle this week endorsed Lehmberg for the job — a boost to her campaign for sure. (There is no Republican in the race.) Still, with less than two months until Texas’ March 4 primary and none of the candidates possessing any real name id, there’s no telling who will win.
All of the candidates have either taken leaves of absences from the DA’s office or are using vacation time to campaign for Earle’s job — arguably the most powerful position in Texas politics, since, as seen in DeLay’s case, the Travis DA has the power to indict Texas politicians, and the fact of an indictment is often all that’s needed to knock someone off their perch.
Reed is one of three prosecutors that have been handling all of the pre-trial issues in the case, and it’s been all pre-trial so far.
The case is on the docket for March 7, but that may be just for show, since the trial judge is suggesting an appeal by Colyandro and Ellis will need to be disposed of before the case can move forward. According to Judge Pat Priest’s homepage, Colyandro and Ellis filed their appeal based on rulings by Judge Bob Perkins, who was replaced by Judge Priest after they objected to donations made by Perkins to Democrats. The appeal is pending in the Third Court of Appeals:
Certain indictments, you may remember, were thrown out by Judge Priest, including conspiracy to violate the election code. That decision was appealed all the way to Texas’ Court of Criminal Appeals, where prosecutors lost, but there were some strongly worded dissents. Based upon these, a motion for rehearing was filed by Earle’s office and denied by the top criminal court.
The indictments that are still alive and well include money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. For the background about where all these charges come from, it’s always worthwhile to consult the Observer’s repository on the DeLay/Abramoff ‘Money Machine’ scandal here.
Once the Third Court rules on the merits of the appeal by Colyandro and Ellis, sources within the DA’s office suggest that decision will be appealed — by whatever party loses. That issue would then be resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Then the drama moves back to Priest’s courtroom, assuming DeLay’s attorney Dick DeGuerin is not in the middle of a case elsewhere.
Once action resumes in Austin, at least two motions need to be resolved, including an allegation by the defendants of prosecutorial misconduct on Earle’s part — focusing on a documentary called The Big Buy, made by Texas filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck. The documentary allegedly features Earle giving the filmmakers lots of access while the case against DeLay and company was being put together. The defendants argue Earle was wrong to participate. The other motion is a request by the defendants for a change of venue — arguing that an Austin jury may well have preconceived notions about DeLay, Colyandro, and Ellis. Surely after these several years, even Austinites, who were roundly disenfranchised by DeLay’s efforts during redistricting, may have allowed their tempers to cool enough to give these fellows a fair trial, but, hey, there’s a reason I’m not a lawyer.
Presumably, after all these things have come to pass, then, finally, the case against DeLay will begin to move. The question is, will that happen this year? It’s hard to say, but probably not, which means, really, that Earle will watch this one from the comfort of his retirement. It seems justice isn’t all that swift after all.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:52 am
Nice summary.
“It seems justice isn’t all that swift after all”. It may be that the Austin DA’s office wants to put time, as many years as possible, between sensational charges and collapse of the case. It may be that Mr Earle is close to Mr Nifong in his actions. The case isn’t the slam dunk the media so prominently trumpeted. It did achieve media intent. Since then so very few national media have carried current status.