I have heard numerous law and order people (mostly Republicans) get upset when someone gets off due to some legal technicality. I wonder they are criticizing DeLay and his co-defendents for their attempts to do so (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5432276,00.html).

On Tuesday, Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's attorney, said DeLay shouldn't be charged with conspiracy to violate the election code because the law wasn't on the books until 2003, the year after DeLay's alleged offenses occurred.
...
Ellis' attorney, Mark Stevens, argued that the state's money laundering statute applies only to cash. The campaign contributions in question were checks, he said.
...
Today's hearing is DeLay's first before Senior Judge Pat Priest, who was appointed to the case after DeLay's attorneys succeeded in having the first judge removed because of his campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and causes. Why don't DeLay and friends just got to trial and prove that they are not guilty based on facts, not legal loopholes.

Ellis' attorney, Mark Stevens, argued that the state's money laundering statute applies only to cash. The campaign contributions in question were checks, he said.

Seems like one could make a good joke out of that.

I have heard numerous law and order people (mostly Republicans) get upset when someone gets off due to some legal technicality. I wonder they are criticizing DeLay and his co-defendents for their attempts to do so (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5432276,00.html).

Why don't DeLay and friends just got to trial and prove that they are not guilty based on facts, not legal loopholes.

**is** anyone?

Seems like one could make a good joke out of that.You mean it isn't a joke?!?


Ellis' attorney, Mark Stevens, argued that the state's money laundering statute applies only to cash. The campaign contributions in question were checks, he said.

No they are not entitled to due process. They're Repubs after all. Betchya wanta' see 'em hang, hey? Libs - defenders of democracy!

No they are not entitled to due process. They're Repubs after all. Betchya wanta' see 'em hang, hey? Libs - defenders of democracy!

Wait until it's your a$$ in the sling . . .

Acually, the law in question is not a "technicality," we're talking about a part of our Constitution that, at the time of its drafting was very important to our founding fathers; viz., the ex post facto clause. Simply put, it prohibits the proscribing of conduct after it occurs, and it is a significant protection.

Consider the following: You go to the store and buy cigarettes. Your neighbor, the mayor, hates you, and he has been waiting all his life to see you screw up. Now he has you, because cigarettes are bad. Unfortunately for the mayor, cigarettes are not illegal. So, he goes to the city council, has them draft an ordinance proscribing cigarettes, the ordinance is passed, and he signs it into law. Then he has you arrested for buying cigarettes, which is now against the law. Will the arrest stick? No, of course not. It is an ex post facto law, meaning the law was not on the books at the time of the conduct, so you had no way of knowing what you did was illegal, and hence, no due process.

This is exactly the sort of stuff the Brits were doing in the latter half of the 18th century, and it WAS and REMAINS unfair. If that is in fact what happened with Delay, he SHOULD walk. What he did may stink, but if it wasn't against the law when he did it, it wasn't a crime, and is not punishable as such now. And this is not a technicality.

All this coming from a liberal . . . what gives?

I applaud your fairmindedness. For someone who would defend Saddam, well, I not quite sure what to make of it.

I applaud your fairmindedness. For someone who would defend Saddam, well, I not quite sure what to make of it.

Were Saddam to be charged under U.S. laws, I would defend him, just as I would defend any other person similarly situated, including Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kazinzki, Charlie Manson, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and even Live Steam! I'd do my best, too. Repugnant as these persons attitudes, views and actions may be, they were and are entitled to a competent defense.

LOL!!! Anything for a buck hey?

That's not what this is about. DeLay says that there was no specific law on the books in 2002 covering conspiracy to violate the election code. The prosecutor says that may be true, but there has long been a law on the books that covers conspiracy to commit a felony, and violating the election code is a felony. The 2003 law making it a conspiracy to violate the election code is just a clarification of existing law.

If DeLay succeeds in his argument, it will hardly be something he can be proud of.

That's not what this is about. DeLay says that there was no specific law on the books in 2002 covering conspiracy to violate the election code. The prosecutor says that may be true, but there has long been a law on the books that covers conspiracy to commit a felony, and violating the election code is a felony. The 2003 law making it a conspiracy to violate the election code is just a clarification of existing law.

If DeLay succeeds in his argument, it will hardly be something he can be proud of.

Unfortunately, the prosecutor may have an uphill battle. The defense likely will argue that the prosecutor is unable to establish that the purpose behind the new law was to clarify a preexisting intent on the part of the legislature to proscribe this sort of conduct.

Conspiracy to commit a felony is a catchall. All conspiracies, by definition, are to commit a felony. The question is, was the underlying conduct felonious. There could be an argument that it was extortion under the cover of authority, etc., but that may be a stretch. I think the defense has a point, and it may be difficult to convict this turd. Of course, I still would love to see him hit the big house. I'm just saying that he might not get hit by this bus.

That's not what people normally mean by getting off on a technicality. Getting off on a technicality means something like you admitted to comitting a murder, and the confession is the best evidence they have and may be necessary for a conviction, but you weren't read your rights before you confessed, and therefore the confession can't be used as evidence against you.

C'mon, guys. You know that it's any defense lawyer's job to get his client's case dismissed if at all possible. Any lawyer would try.

That his defense in this case is ludicrous, it's still his responsibility to try.

Besides, isn't it the religious right that thinks that they can restrict the ways an individual (or consenting adults) can get off?

C'mon, guys. You know that it's any defense lawyer's job to get his client's case dismissed if at all possible. Any lawyer would try.

That his defense in this case is ludicrous, it's still his responsibility to try.
Exactly, if you can rail road a guilty man to prison you can do the same to a innocent man, we have laws, and they must be upheld.

I don't see how the republicans can say anything about fair trial, etc... As long as they are running the gitmo fun camp in cuba. Anyone else hear about the american citizen, innocent, might I add, that has been there for 3 plus years, where was HIS day in court?