DeLay case in more trouble

Austin American-Statesman:

Money-laundering charges against former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two indicted co-conspirators may be dismissed because the 2002 campaign finance case involved checks and not cash, a lawyer for DeLay said Sunday night.

"We win," said Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's lawyer, "because there's nothing but checks in the case."

The state's 3rd Court of Appeals on Friday actually upheld the money-laundering indictments against DeLay's two campaign associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington.

But the ruling contained a silver lining for the trio's lawyers because it concluded that the state's money-laundering statute — written in 1993 to combat illicit drug activity by focusing on the cash in the criminal transactions — did not apply to checks at the time DeLay is accused of laundering corporate money into campaign donations. The Legislature changed the law in 2005 to include checks.

Lawyers for the three defendants have included the check-versus-cash argument in other legal motions. But it was not part of the constitutional challenge that was before the 3rd Court of Appeals, so the appellate court could not dismiss on those grounds, DeGuerin said.

Instead, the court upheld the money-laundering indictments against DeLay's associates, saying the law is not unconstitutionally vague and gives adequate notice of the conduct that would be considered illegal. Three judges, all Republicans, issued Friday's opinion, which was written by Justice Alan Waldrop.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said the check-versus-cash argument is absurd: "The court's reasoning is like saying that you can get away with murder if you pay the hit man with a check."

Prosecutors can file a motion for a rehearing before the appellate court.

DeLay is technically not a part of Friday's opinion because he was indicted a year after Colyandro and Ellis. But the ruling could effect all three.

DeGuerin said he would take the appellate court's opinion back to Pat Priest, the trial judge in San Antonio, who has dismissed the check argument previously. Armed with the opinion, however, DeGuerin said he expects Priest to reconsider DeLay's motion to dismiss the charges because only checks — not cash — were involved in the transactions.

...

The money laundering statutes were intended for criminal enterprises and not to criminalize political differences. That is where Earle went wrong. The court of appeals maybe being ticky tacky with the language, but Earle invited it by trying to apply it to a political difference with Republicans. The case never should have been brought. It has the appearance of a bad faith attempt to influence political races through the use of Earle's office.