Confusion Reigns Supreme in the Jury Room

So the jurors who are now engaged in determining if Tom DeLay is guilty of money laundering and conspiracy seem to be confused. This is obvious to me in the nature of their questions sent out to Judge Pat Priest.

Question: “Can it constitute money laundering if the money wasn't procured by illegal means originally?”

That’s two negatives in the sentence so I will translate:

“Can it constitute money laundering if the money was procured by legal means originally?”

What?

Does someone think that money laundering takes place only with illegally acquired money? Did someone completely miss the point? Is someone simply confused?

Dick DeGuerin hit the nail on the head in his evaluation of the question:

“It shows the confusion. ... There was no crime, It's a very good sign”

I’ll say. Confusion reigns supreme in the jury room.

They’re so confused that they even asked the judge the same question again worded in another way.

It seems that while we have 12 jurors deciding DeLay’s fate, they seem to have half a brain to share between them.

Well at least Tom DeLay is truly getting a trial judged by his peers.

The Jury Now Owns Tom DeLay

The defense rested last week and the prosecution and defense wrapped up with their final arguments in the money laundering trial of former Dancing With the Stars contestant Tom DeLay today.

And oh, yes, former congressman.

Hopefully soon-to-be former free man.

But I have my doubts. Judge Pat Priest, who appeared to be more of a help than a hurt to the prosecution gave the jury too little latitude in deciding whether a conspiracy existed with Tom DeLay one of the conspirators.

In his charge to the jury, Judge Priest said this:

“Likewise, participation in a conspiracy cannot be proven merely by the fact that a person knew of a conspiracy and was associated with or in the presence of persons involved in the conspiracy.”

Well that pretty much was the prosecution’s case. That Tom DeLay knew of the conspiracy beforehand. Knew about it and did nothing.

It’s just like saying that if you know that your best friend or co-worker is conspiring to kill his wife, then does it, and you do nothing to prevent it, that makes you maybe morally culpable, but not guilty of participation in the conspiracy.

It’s a fine line, and Judge Priest definitely crossed it.

It is also reported at the Chron that half the jury wore black today on the final day of the trial. While the hope is that the jury was dressing for Tom DeLay’s funeral, it could also be that they were dressing in mourning of the death of modern democracy.

I sure would if I were on the jury.

Nobody Told Me Not to Mow the Carpet

Travis County, Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle made his case to the state Court of Criminal Appeals today. Earle claims that Tom DeLay and others conspired to funnel corporate PAC money to individual State Senate and House campaigns in the 2002 election. It goes hand in hand with his money laundering charges.

By law, corporate PAC money cannot be used to fund individual campaigns, but only to offset some housekeeping expenses like buying paper clips and post-its. That this money was eventually used to fund glossy mailouts for the 2002 election, which helped elect a Republican majority, is the big issue. That and the fact that it was a crime that was planned in advance.

Where’s the rub? Well it turns out that the conspiracy part of the law wasn’t enacted until a year after the crime was committed. DeLay’s lawyers argue that you can’t file charges on a crime committed before it was specifically identified as a crime.

Earle argues that conspiracy law is on the books, just in another set of books. The restrictions on corporate PAC contributions are found in the Texas Election Code. The crime of criminal conspiracy is found in the Texas Penal Code. Tom DeLay’s lawyers say that the existence of a later conspiracy addition to the Election Code means that it really wasn’t a crime of conspiracy before 2003. That is, they made it a special case in ’03, so the Penal Code’s anti-conspiracy law can’t be used.

I have to admit, they’ve got a lot of nerve. Tom DeLay is at it again. According to this logic now, we have to come up with specific laws that govern conspiracy. If it becomes a crime to conspire to steal aspirin from a pharmacy in 2007, you can’t be charged with the crime committed in 2006 even though there is a blanket conspiracy law on the books.

Earle is right. A ruling in DeLay’s favor puts all conspiracy law at risk. We have to anticipate every single crime that could be committed, and pass a law making it a crime to conspire to do it. Texans are exposed to all sorts of criminal behavior. If the conspiracy law cannot be used as a blanket law covering all crime in all Texas codes, we are in deep trouble.

It reminds me of Lily Tomlin’s character that she played on “Laugh In” several decades ago. My favorite of all time is a scene of her swinging on a swing singing “Nobody told me not to mow the carpet”, a little ditty where she complained about being punished for doing something not specifically forbidden.

Tom DeLay and five year old Edith Ann, Tomlin’s character, share common logic and reason.

Trouble is, it will make a horrible precedent.

DeLay’s lawyers are confident in beating this one off. I wouldn’t count on it. People in this state, and it doesn’t matter of what party affiliation, are mad as H-E-Double Hockey Sticks at him. That he’s now trying to undermine our laws so that he can beat a conspiracy charge tips the scales.