Tom Delay conviction overturned

Tom Delay's conviction for influencing elections in Texas has been overturned by a Texas appeals court.

He was convicted in 2010 for funneling money from companies to Republican candidates (money-laundering).

The court said the evidence was legally insufficient.

Delay was a U.S. Congressman from 1984 until 2006 the U.S. House Majority Leader from 2003 - 2005, and resigned when the charges became public.

The wheels of justice have finally ground into dust the conviction of former Majority Leader Tom Delay, whose brilliant political career was ruined by a politicized indictment undertaken by a left wing district attorney named Ronny Earle. Mike Snyder of the Houston Chronicle reports:

An Austin appeals court on Thursday overturned the conviction of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on charges related to a scheme to influence Texas elections.

The vote by the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin was 2-1. DeLay's three-year prison sentence has been on hold as his case has made its way through the appellate process.

Delay was convicted in 2010 of illegally channeling $190,000 in corporate donations to Republicans running for the Texas Legislature. State law prohibits corporate campaign contributions to local races. A jury in Austin found that DeLay's actions-collecting checks, moving the funds through a political action committee and distributing the donations to state candidates-violated state money-laundering statutes.

Tom Delay conviction overturned

reply to post by xuenchen


Good find, and thanks:F&S. I didn't care much for his style, and sometimes like a lot of Texans he "took care of his own" a little zealously...
but on the other hand this smelled like a frame. Guess the damage is done, and we gotta move on somewhat wounded.

reply to post by xuenchen


I read the dissenting opinion, something the media has left out of the discussion. The opinions can be found at the following link: Texas Court of Appeals (Austin)

The dissenting opinion points out that the court basically overruled the jury's finding of fact. Appellate courts are not supposed to determine issues of fact, only legal issues. However, the dissenting opinion states all the court has done was determine that a jury could not possibly form a finding of fact as to Delay's intent (Intent is purely a fact finding issue). The dissent further goes on to state that matters of credibility of witness testimony is for the jury to decide only, not for the court of appeals to second guess.

After reading both opinions, I believe the dissent opinion is the most reasonable interpretation of the law and one that was entirely not discussed in the majority opinion. The majority determines issues of fact as legal issues and supplants its own opinion of the evidence in place of the jury's opinion.

The prosecutor should appeal this decision, although it will be telling if the prosecutor does not. Courts have been known to creatively interpret law when they desire a certain outcome. This case should be appealed all the way to the top court. Otherwise there will always be the perception that the courts had some back room deal and ignored the law to get off one of their political buddies.

Good decision imo, based upon the facts....

Listening to Rush today it was like...what am I in 1990 again?
What with Jennifer Flowers and her claim to fame of a 12 year
affair with Bill Clinton, then Hillary also having affairs with women,
then how the Dems so hated Tom Delay....



P.S. I dont know why my smileys are orange but out of the
sphere of it, they look alien....LOL.

ExPostFacto
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I read the dissenting opinion, something the media has left out of the discussion. The opinions can be found at the following link: Texas Court of Appeals (Austin)

The dissenting opinion points out that the court basically overruled the jury's finding of fact. Appellate courts are not supposed to determine issues of fact, only legal issues. However, the dissenting opinion states all the court has done was determine that a jury could not possibly form a finding of fact as to Delay's intent (Intent is purely a fact finding issue). The dissent further goes on to state that matters of credibility of witness testimony is for the jury to decide only, not for the court of appeals to second guess.

After reading both opinions, I believe the dissent opinion is the most reasonable interpretation of the law and one that was entirely not discussed in the majority opinion. The majority determines issues of fact as legal issues and supplants its own opinion of the evidence in place of the jury's opinion.

The prosecutor should appeal this decision, although it will be telling if the prosecutor does not. Courts have been known to creatively interpret law when they desire a certain outcome. This case should be appealed all the way to the top court. Otherwise there will always be the perception that the courts had some back room deal and ignored the law to get off one of their political buddies.

edit on 19-9-2013 by ExPostFacto because: fix link

Maybe you should read into this a little more. This was a political witch hunt from the beginning. The prosecutors tried to bring charges on different issues against DeLay over half dozen times in the ten years prior to this, until they finally swayed a grand jury to buy into the BS.

There was huge liberal media coverage when Delay went down for this, but I haven't seen anything since the conviction was overturned. Funny how that works. Destroy a man's life, do everything you can to bury him alive and then when it comes out that that is exactly what you've done...walk quietly away as if nothing ever happened.

Rezlooper

ExPostFacto
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I read the dissenting opinion, something the media has left out of the discussion. The opinions can be found at the following link: Texas Court of Appeals (Austin)

The dissenting opinion points out that the court basically overruled the jury's finding of fact. Appellate courts are not supposed to determine issues of fact, only legal issues. However, the dissenting opinion states all the court has done was determine that a jury could not possibly form a finding of fact as to Delay's intent (Intent is purely a fact finding issue). The dissent further goes on to state that matters of credibility of witness testimony is for the jury to decide only, not for the court of appeals to second guess.

After reading both opinions, I believe the dissent opinion is the most reasonable interpretation of the law and one that was entirely not discussed in the majority opinion. The majority determines issues of fact as legal issues and supplants its own opinion of the evidence in place of the jury's opinion.

The prosecutor should appeal this decision, although it will be telling if the prosecutor does not. Courts have been known to creatively interpret law when they desire a certain outcome. This case should be appealed all the way to the top court. Otherwise there will always be the perception that the courts had some back room deal and ignored the law to get off one of their political buddies.

edit on 19-9-2013 by ExPostFacto because: fix link

Maybe you should read into this a little more. This was a political witch hunt from the beginning. The prosecutors tried to bring charges on different issues against DeLay over half dozen times in the ten years prior to this, until they finally swayed a grand jury to buy into the BS.

There was huge liberal media coverage when Delay went down for this, but I haven't seen anything since the conviction was overturned. Funny how that works. Destroy a man's life, do everything you can to bury him alive and then when it comes out that that is exactly what you've done...walk quietly away as if nothing ever happened.

I call B.S.!!!! Tom DeLay is guilty as sin and his original conviction was not a witch hunt or the result of being framed. You can tell yourself that, but it doesn't make it true and I think the court recognizes that fact as well and expressed as much in the dissenting opinion just like ExPostFacto said.

It has already been announced that the prosecution will indeed appeal this decision and if our system of justice has any merit at all, we'll see Tom DeLay re-convicted and sent to prison where he belongs.

district attorney named Ronny Earle had to go through 11 grand juries before getting a indictment on DeLay and this is a state where you can get a grand jury indictment against a sandwich.

And has a long history of going after republican holding office. and even democrats top help his democrat friends get into office.
www.realclearpolitics.com...