Appeals court rules against Earle on DeLay case

R.G. Ratcliffe:

A state appeals court Wednesday upheld a district judge's decision to throw out charges against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of conspiring to violate Texas election law, but the ruling only moved DeLay slightly closer to standing trial on other charges.

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals upheld Senior District Judge Pat Priest's December ruling tossing out charges against DeLay that accused him of conspiracy to violate the state election code. The charges related to how a political committee he founded spent corporate money in the 2002 elections.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is expected to appeal the case again to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, further postponing DeLay's attempts to get his case before a jury on separate money laundering charges. Earle's office said he is still studying the ruling before deciding whether to appeal further.

...

The original indictment on conspiracy to violate the election code last September forced DeLay to step down as U.S. House majority leader. Earlier this month, DeLay announced he will resign from Congress, probably in June.

The 3rd Court ruling brings DeLay, R-Sugar Land, one step closer to a trial on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering — charges that Priest upheld.

In an e-mail to attorneys and reporters, Priest said he did not believe a trial for DeLay could occur before July 1 and said if Earle appeals the 3rd Court ruling "it could be much later still."

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said Earle should take the 3rd Court ruling as a sign he should move the case forward. DeGuerin said he does not believe Earle is interested in a speedy trial, though.

...

Earle continues to be an embarassment to the criminal juistice system in Texas. The chances of him prevailing on appealing this issue further are remote. The reason he doesn't just drop the matter and go to trial on the remaining counts that he trumped up after he knew the first indictment was questionable, is because he has no evidence to support the non conspiracy counts. The best he can do is show that DeLay was aware of certain acts after the fact. Whether those acts were illegal is still hotly contested.