| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Judge tosses DeLay case subpoenas | |
| 2006-03-14 | |
| AUSTIN — A state appeals court today threw out more than 30 subpoenas requested by Travis County prosecutors building a criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, saying the investigation should have stopped in December when a district judge halted proceedings in his court. District Attorney Ronnie Earle has been issuing the subpoenas ever since Senior District Judge Pat Priest dismissed all or part of three indictments against DeLay, R-Sugar Land. Earle appealed Priest's ruling, and the judge stayed the case pending a ruling by the Third Court of Appeals. Most of the subpoenas involved political fund-raising controversies that have involved DeLay, some dating back to 1996.
After Earle subpoenaed records from DeLay's wife, Christine, DeLay's legal team asked Priest to quash the subpoenas. Priest told DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin that the case was stayed while on appeal, so he would neither halt Earle from issuing subpoenas nor would he enforce them. DeGuerin then asked the appeals court to intervene. "Because the state has obtained a stay in the proceedings ... we hold that subpoenas may not issue compelling witnesses to testify and produce documents at the stayed proceedings," the order by a three-judge panel said. The panel, which is scheduled to hear Earle's appeal on March 22, said Earle may not issue any more subpoenas while the stay is in effect; ruled all the ones issued after the stay are "null and void;" and any subpoenas issued before the stay are suspended while the appeal is pending. The unsigned order was issued by Judges Bea A. Smith, David Puryear and Alan Waldrop. Smith is a Democrat. Puryear and Waldrop are Republicans who are up for re-election this year. DeGuerin was not immediately available for comment, but his law partner Matt Hennessy called it a victory in stopping Earle from running a "political" investigation. "Congressman DeLay doesn't have anything to fear from whatever evidence might have been produced," Hennessy said. "The point here is Ronnie Earle is abusing his office ... to have a court declare that Ronnie Earle was abusing his office, and that is in effect what the Third Court said." Earle's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #4 Sounds like the mess is getting fuzzier. Then again this is Texas. Anyone remember when the Texas state rep Democracs when into hiding over the board, 1998? |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2006-03-14 19:31 |
| #3 I read about this today and it seems that since the CONSPIRACY charge was thrown out and the case was on hold on appeal, Earle kept on issuing subpeonas when it is comsidered improper to do so and is almost Prosecutorial Misconduct in Texas. |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-03-14 19:26 |
| #2 I think the prosecutor only needs to get enough evidence for an indictment. Once discovery begins, though, they can keep asking for as much as they want. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-14 18:56 |
| #1 Can some lawyer explain to me if this is SOP? I thought that once you filed charges, the prosecuter had all the "evidence" needed to get a conviction. If this is SOP you could indict anyone and dig until you gound something. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-14 17:32 |