home

DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux?

From the Texas Monthly, February, 2005, (available on Lexis.com: an article profiling Texas DA Ronnie Earle: Much of the article is flattering to Earle, but it also talks about Earle's failed attempt in 1993 to have then-Governor Ann Richards appoint him to be U.S. Senator when Lloyd Bentson left to join Clinton's cabinet. Instead, she appointed a conservative Democrat who went on to lose to Kay Bailey Hutchison in the election. The article describes Earles' humiliating retreat and surrender in the Hutchison case (she was ordered acquitted by the Court on the first day of the scheduled jury trial after he announced he wanted to drop the charges.) There was an issue as to admissibility of evidence which the judge refused to rule on before trial, and on the first day of trial, not knowing what the ruling would be, Earle told the judge he wanted to drop the charges.

That same year, after hearing evidence from Ronnie and the Public Integrity Unit, a grand jury indicted Hutchison on allegations of using state employees for personal and campaign tasks and then destroying state files that documented the abuse. Hutchison was outraged by the indictments, as were two political advisers named Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. In seeking the Senate appointment from Richards, Ronnie had left himself open for an effective counterspin: The guy didn't get to be the senator, so he went after Hutchison in a fit of jealousy and spite.

Here's what happened:

The newly elected senator's team was led by Texas's hottest defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin. Ronnie assigned his first assistant to argue the case, but he broke his customary rule and went to court himself. John Onion, a respected judge, voiced doubts during pretrial hearings about the admissibility of evidence the prosecution had built its case on. To the astonishment of courtroom observers, Ronnie abruptly announced that the state was not going to go forward with its prosecution. Thunderstruck, Onion barked some exasperated remarks and declined to let the matter go with the charges merely being dropped -- he ordered the jury to acquit her.

Ronnie says that the revelations about the innocent men his office and Travis County juries had sent to prison were by far the lowest point of his career. But politically, the Hutchison fiasco is the albatross he hung around his own neck. "The greenest lawyer from Podunk knows not to do what Ronnie did," said the lawyer who had observed the Mattox case. "You don't go into any trial, certainly not one of that magnitude, without a plan B. The judge hadn't said he was going to bar the evidence Ronnie's team had accumulated; he said he was going to examine it piece by piece, and he might disallow it. What you do is play it out and see. Maybe you can bring the judge around. Develop a plan B. But an able courtroom prosecutor would never just call it down."

Lawyers are habitual Monday-morning quarterbacks, and even Ronnie's Democratic allies in the Travis County courthouse are not inclined to let him forget that episode. One wisecrack has it: "The bad news for Tom DeLay is that he might get indicted. The good news is that he would be prosecuted by Ronnie Earle."

DeLay bragged Thursday (probably to his lawyer's chagrin) about his lawyer having beaten Earle before:

My lawyer's better than him. He's already taught him a lesson," Mr. DeLay said, referring to Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin's successful defense of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in a case that Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle famously dropped before trial.

Memo from TalkLeft to Mr. DeLay: If you want to keep your lawyer, who is the finest you will ever get, pay attention to -- and give primary consideration to -- what he tells you over and above what your political advisers and p.r. people tell you. Your lawyer is concerned about your legal liability and your exposure to a jail sentence. Your P.R. people are concerned about re-establishing your reputation once you are found not guilty. Without a great lawyer behind you, that day may never come for you. Lawyers don't like it when their clients speak to the media out of turn. Especially when they brag like children on a school playground: "My lawyer's better than your lawyer, nah-nah." It's also pretty low class.

Your best bet is to act humbly, like a wrongfully charged man, and simply say you have confidence that your lawyer will straighten this all out so that the people finally know the truth. And don't say what that truth is, in case, it doesn't come to pass the way you are hoping.

You may find yourself in a salvage mission, and in that instance, the less said by you the better. Put another way, say only that which your lawyers have authorized you to say, and cut your p.r. people from your payroll now. They will do you no good if you end up in the Texas Department of Corrections. Only your lawyer will be left then, trying to demonstrate to a higher court the errors that put you there. Trust your lawyers and those they hire on your behalf, and let the others go. Understand that it's a dog-eat-dog world out there. You are no longer in the director's chair.

< Potential Supreme Court Nominees | Survey: "Half of U.S. Sees 'Judicial Activism Crisis'" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I don't know. With a worst case scenario being two years in prison, and the likely sentence probably less than the maximum and quite possibly probation and a fine, and with your political career being the single most important thing in your entire life, thinking beyond a conviction may make a certain amount of sense. What has DeLay got to live for if he is acquitted but botted out of Congress?

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    He's got to weigh that against the chance that he'd go to the Texas Department of Corrections, and how he'd be treated there. Remember, this isn't the federal system where'd he'd get a relatively comfy "club fed."

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Your argument is based on DeLay playing by rules of decency. He has no decency and does not believe that rules apply to him. DeLay believes that he is the puppeteer above Hastert, therefore the third most powerful man in the United States, therefore the world. To use a Texas expression, DeLay must see Earle as a pissant. But, he also must see he own lawyer as one too. It will take all of DeGuerin's skills to shut up his client and prevent DeLay from shooting himself in the foot.

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    What can I say but Roscoe Domino is right about our boy DeLay, and what can I say about A country that has made guys like DeLay?

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I don't think I'd be comfortable underestimating DeLay's wriggling ability. It's not over till the dealin's done, as they say..

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I don't do a lot of criminal law, and certainly not in Texas, but it strikes me as strange that there wasn't a pretrial ruling on admissibility of the evidence, before the jury was empaneled and the defendant was technically "in jeopardy".

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#7)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    It must be nice knowing that even if you're convicted and spend two years in jail, there is always a job waiting for you on K Street...

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I'm wondering if DeGuerin might be having second thoughts about taking this case after Delay went tin-foil hat with Blitzer.

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#9)
    by wg on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    (on the periphery of Delay story) There are two things I know to be true: a) there are decent, honorable and fair prosecutors out there, and b) there is no question the prosecutorial system in this country is heavily politicized. Examples of the latter abound. Let me mention just one. When the FBI wanted to improve their chances of getting some new, Stasi-like police powers from Congress ("Patriot Act" enhancements, administrative subpoena **) there was a rush of rather questionable "terror" indictments all across the country. And then nothing again, for long periods of time. You kind of wonder how much integrity is there in the system. Using DoJ prosecutorial powers (US attorneys) or local DA offices to harass your political opponents has such a long tradition it raises few eyebrows any more. Part of the political, legal culture of the country you might say. Again the question of integrity of the system comes to mind. -- Some degree of politicization is perhaps unavoidable, prosecutors yield too much power to be left alone. The situation in other countries isn't that much better generally speaking, although Italy seem to have made a significant progress, their prosecutors seem to enjoy a degree of political independence unusual by our standards. Let us hope it will not take what Italy had to go through to institute necessary changes here. --------- ** (this is the BEST short piece I've seen in recent times on where we are with the "Patriot Act" these days)

    Re: DeLay and Earle: Hutchison Redux? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    Ready, aim, kill the messenger!