Tom DeLay, Innocent Man

When Tom DeLay was convicted, I was quick to write Tom Delay, Convicted Felon.

It’s fair that I be just as quick to note that today DeLay is not a convicted felon. He’s not even in jeopardy. He is an innocent man. ((The presumption of innocence means you’re innocent until the government proves you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)) The Austin Court of Appeals reversed and rendered the case, which means that the appellate court didn’t remand (send the case back for a new trial) but rather found DeLay not guilty. He could get the case expunged from governmental records if he cared to.

The State could try to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, but that court of Republicans isn’t likely to grant discretionary review. So it’s likely all over for the State but the crying.

Brian Wice and Dick DeGuerin are responsible for the reversal—Dick tried the case, and Brian appealed it.

8 responses to “Tom DeLay, Innocent Man”

  1. You’re correct, of course, but the word “innocent” seems caught in my throat.

    I’m waiting now for your comments on the Christopher James Wade opinion from the CCA. A strong Libertarian streak seems to have finally erupted. And, 8-0 !

  2. Everything you say is true. Its also true that, had he been tried for being a son of a bitch, and a divisive bastard, the conviction would not have been overturned. This is my version of the Trayvon Martin verdict. I agreed with that verdict and vehemently disagree with this decision.

  3. 1.The pre­sump­tion of inno­cence means you’re inno­cent until the gov­ern­ment proves you guilty beyond a rea­son­able doubt.

    Mr. B., does that includes those of us that pled Not Guilty but were advised 100 +/- days later to stop jury trials at lunch recess on day one or earlier, in order to plea bargain (being informed that despite the trials guilty or not guilty verdicts, we were going prison anyway) simply for being on probation at time of arrest on new unrealted charge?

    If yes, then the act of not allowing the acussed via trickery, his / her Full Day in court all the way to verdict is equal to being – “Delay-ed”. Couldn’t resist. Thanks.

  4. What are your thoughts on Chief Justice Jones’s dissent?

    I had the opportunity to attend oral arguments last October, and he telegraphed his views then, so his dissent is not a surprise.

    I am just trying to determine whether it has ANY validity. He seems to be saying that, even though TRMPAC in fact used the corporate funds in a legal manner, a rational jury might find that the corporate donors INTENDED for TRMPAC to use them illegally, and that therefore the donations are the proceeds of a felony.

    Could a jury rationally find such illegal intent in the absence of any expression of such intent or actual illegal use of the funds?

    Chief Justice Jones is a highly regarded jurist and attorney, so I don’t want to dismiss him out of hand. But in this case, I am having trouble taking him seriously. Am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.