A Prosecutor Out Of Control
I'm not talking about Patrick Fitzgerald. As Washington exploded yesterday with the revelation of Bob Woodward's involvement in the Libby case, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and his deputies were busy in court defending their conduct prosecuting Tom DeLay.
We already know Earle misfired badly on the first indictment and then tried to paper over the blunder by going to a second grand jury two days later and frantically asking it to return a new indictment. That grand jury refused to bring charges against DeLay, a fact the public did not learn until almost a week later, after yet a third grand jury agreed to indict DeLay on charges of money laundering.
But now we've learned something new. Yesterday in court papers filed in Austin, Earle's office admitted that in the two days following the second grand jury's decision to issue the no-bill on Friday, September 30, "an investigator with Earle's office telephoned several members of the first grand jury, which had been dismissed, and asked whether the evidence they heard would have warranted a first-degree felony charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering."
The Austin American-Statesman (reg req) also reports that, "the opinions of the former grand jurors might have been shared with a third grand jury on Oct. 3, but jurors were told nothing of the secret deliberations by the previous grand jury. On the first day of its term, the third grand jury returned the first-degree felony charges after hearing evidence for a few hours."
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, so I'd love to know if surveying the opinions of former grand jury members on a case and then allegedly using those opinions to try and influence a subsequent grand jury (while purposefully excluding what could only be considered exculpatory information from an immeidately preceding grand jury) is considered standard practice or whether it is well outside the bounds of ethical prosecutorial behavior. I suspect it is almost certainly the latter.
I'd also like to know (as would DeLay's lawyers) how it is that the final grand jury could have gotten this case on the Monday (Oct 3) immediately following the previous grand jury's decision not to indict DeLay (Friday, September 30) and come to a decision after "hearing evidence for a few hours."
Earle was seeking fresh indictments on different charges (money laundering) since it was obvious the charges in the original indictment (criminal conspiracy to violate state campaign laws) weren't going to hold water. Is it plausible to think the final grand jury received a full and fair presentation of the facts and testimony in this case and were able to deliberate on the material with appropriate diligence in less than a single day? Not very likely, especially when you consider the original grand jury took months to hear evidence and deliberated right up until the final day of its term.
We already know Earle misfired badly on the first indictment and then tried to paper over the blunder by going to a second grand jury two days later and frantically asking it to return a new indictment. That grand jury refused to bring charges against DeLay, a fact the public did not learn until almost a week later, after yet a third grand jury agreed to indict DeLay on charges of money laundering.
But now we've learned something new. Yesterday in court papers filed in Austin, Earle's office admitted that in the two days following the second grand jury's decision to issue the no-bill on Friday, September 30, "an investigator with Earle's office telephoned several members of the first grand jury, which had been dismissed, and asked whether the evidence they heard would have warranted a first-degree felony charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering."
The Austin American-Statesman (reg req) also reports that, "the opinions of the former grand jurors might have been shared with a third grand jury on Oct. 3, but jurors were told nothing of the secret deliberations by the previous grand jury. On the first day of its term, the third grand jury returned the first-degree felony charges after hearing evidence for a few hours."
I am not a lawyer or legal expert, so I'd love to know if surveying the opinions of former grand jury members on a case and then allegedly using those opinions to try and influence a subsequent grand jury (while purposefully excluding what could only be considered exculpatory information from an immeidately preceding grand jury) is considered standard practice or whether it is well outside the bounds of ethical prosecutorial behavior. I suspect it is almost certainly the latter.
I'd also like to know (as would DeLay's lawyers) how it is that the final grand jury could have gotten this case on the Monday (Oct 3) immediately following the previous grand jury's decision not to indict DeLay (Friday, September 30) and come to a decision after "hearing evidence for a few hours."
Earle was seeking fresh indictments on different charges (money laundering) since it was obvious the charges in the original indictment (criminal conspiracy to violate state campaign laws) weren't going to hold water. Is it plausible to think the final grand jury received a full and fair presentation of the facts and testimony in this case and were able to deliberate on the material with appropriate diligence in less than a single day? Not very likely, especially when you consider the original grand jury took months to hear evidence and deliberated right up until the final day of its term.