Posted on 09/30/2005 7:35:03 PM PDT by anymouse
The 12-member grand jury that indicted U.S. Rep. Tom Delay, R-Sugar Land, faces scrutiny from critics who say they are lackeys for Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.
Foreman William Gibson lives in a Northeast Austin neighborhood.
It's been his philosophy not to have his picture taken because he doesn't want to be harassed, Gibson said.
Gibson isn't really afraid of that. He did his duty and that bound him to look at Tom Delay as just another Texan accused of criminal conspiracy, he said.
"I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members," Gibson said.
The grand jury foreman also takes great exception to accusations that he and 11 other grand jury members followed the lead of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle instead of following the evidence.
"It was not a rubber stamp deal. It was not an overnight deal. If we needed extra information, it was provided to us," Gibson said.
On Wednesday, Earle would not go into details about any potential evidence against Delay. But he did describe the scheme he's accusing Delay of coordinating.
"The indictment describes a scheme whereby corporate money, which cannot be given to candidates in Texas was sent to the Republican National Committee where it was exchanged for money raised from individuals and then sent to those Texas legislative candidates," Earle said.
Gibson thinks there is enough evidence to convict Delay.
"We would not have handed down an indictment. We would have no-billed the man, if we didn't feel there was sufficient evidence," said Gibson.
The evidence is there to prove Delay was involved in wrongdoing and also prove that he and his fellow grand jurors acted independent of political influence, Gibson said.
"It wasn't Mr. Earle that indicted the man. It was the 12 members of the grand jury," Gibson said.
Gibson is a former sheriff's deputy and a former investigator for what is now the Texas Department of Insurance.
Search "Pumpkin Man NH Academy Teacher"
Interesting that this part isn't actually in quotes. A grand jury is not supposed to decide if there is "proof of wrongdoing"--their job is to decide if there is probable cause to believe the crime may have taken place.
And the others who said grand jurors cannot speak a peep about the cases are correct. I think this big-mouth will end up in hot water.
William Gibson, 76, a former sheriff's deputy in Austin, was the grand jury foreman. He wouldn't discuss specifically what evidence was presented that swayed the jury to indict.
"He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him," Gibson said of DeLay. "Just something happened. I have no grudge against the man."
As for DeLay's claims that the indictment was politically motivated, Gibson said: "Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him."
The grand jury did not take action against Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, Texas Association of Business President Bill Hammond or state Reps. Dianne Delisi and Beverly Woolley, both of whom sit on the political action committee's board, for their roles in the election.
Another grand jury will be appointed around the first of October. Earle said the investigation is ongoing.
A Grand Jury doesn't see proof of guilt or wrongdoing because they only hear one side of the case. And that is almost always a third party side.
They only decide if there is "sufficient evidence" to remand the case over for trial.
Sorry I asked.
By the way, I just noticed the 'Greek' in the name. I don't know if you are or not, but a buddy I used to work with taught me a few words...gamisoo, putzo, moonaki, strigla. I hope these language skills will come in handy during my next visit to Greektown. Ohpa!!!!
And remember there were five grand juries BEFORE this one that didn't think there was sufficient evidence.
Agreed. I served on a grand jury for a year. It is a one-sided (the prosecutor's) display. In my experience it wasn't third parties, though. It was the prosecutor's office presenting their case along with witnesses for the prosecution.
Be Careful with your recreational Greek around the ladies.
I have the feeling that by the time this is over some of those who have gone after Tom DeLay will wish they had done something else.
"I like his aggressiveness and everything, and I had nothing against the House majority man, but I felt that we had enough evidence, not only me, but the other grand jury members," Gibson said.
The statement begs the question, what is a "House majority man."
I know enough from that single sentence.
Now the prosecutor and the "foreman" are speaking of this "case" in public.
Draw your own conclusions, I have mine.
Ping.
He sounds like the next Crazy Cindy, to me; a mediawhore for sure.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A grand jury is a type of common law jury; responsible for investigating alleged crimes, examining evidence, and issuing indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. A grand jury is distinguished from a petit jury, which is used during trial; the names refer to their respective sizes (typically 25 and 12 members respectively). ["bloated jury" seems more appropriate. Grand jury connotes delusions of grandeur.]
... witnesses can be compelled to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either "true bill" (i.e. there is a case to answer) or "no true bill." [I prefer "true bull".]
Britain abandoned grand juries in the 1930s, and today less than half of the states in the U.S. employ them. Most jurisdictions have abolished grand juries, replacing them with the preliminary hearing at which a Judge hears evidence concerning the alleged offenses and makes a decision on whether the prosecution can proceed. However, grand juries are still used in a number of US jurisdictions.[Especially jurisdictions where ham sandwiches are in abundance.]
Yep. See post #14
No mention of extortion, in the film, I bet.
"The judges here would have locked me up"
Just another example of how the Democrats are nudging their way into illegal behaviors and getting away with it. Who would have to prosecute this guy, someone inside the county in question or outside of it? Inside is all Dems (Austin) outside is mainly Repubs (Texas at large).
This guy is going to be sooooooooooooooooo sorry he ever opened his mouth!
Gibson only heard the prosecution's evidence. Neither DeLay nor his attorneys were there to challenge it.
It's a whole different ballgame when the other team is allowed to suit up and play too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.