home

DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay

I just found out that Tom DeLay has got himself the best lawyer in Texas and one of the best trial lawyers in the country - Houston's Dick DeGuerin. The other best one in my opinion is his brother, Mike DeGeurin. (Yes, they spell their last names differently.)

Dick has also been a very good friend of mine for 20 years. You may remember him as David Koresh's lawyer in WACO, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson's lawyer, or the lawyer (along with Chip Lewis) who got Robert Durst acquitted of murder even though he admitted hacking up the body.

That means I'll be reporting the news on the case and analyzing it legally, but I won't be slamming DeLay any more. Sorry, folks, but loyalty is loyalty. Just thought I'd be up front about it.

Of course, TChris and Last Night in Little Rock are welcome to slam DeLay all they want.

Dick's first comment:

DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, says there's "no crime." He says Earle is trying to "destroy" DeLay because of DeLay's Republican leadership role. DeGuerin says the case may be thrown out before it gets to trial. But he says if there's a trial, "any fair jury is going to find out that Tom DeLay did nothing wrong." He says he wants a trial "right away."

The Washington Post reports:

DeLay could go to trial in 90 days, which the defense said it favored. "We want a trial right away," DeGuerin said. "We want a trial by the end of the year."

Buck Wood, an attorney who represents Democrats suing some of the corporations that contributed to DeLay's PAC, said although it's difficult to go to trial quickly that may best serve DeLay. "I can understand why Tom DeLay wants a quick trial, because politically (the indictment) paralyzes him," Wood said.

Actually, I don't think that's why the defense wants a speedy trial. I suspect it's because they believe the prosecution can't get their case ready for trial that fast.

The grand jury foreman said Ronnie Earle didn't press for the indictment - the grand jury did.

...the grand jury's foreman, William Gibson, told The Associated Press that Earle didn't pressure members to indict DeLay. "Ronnie Earle didn't indict him. The grand jury indicted him," Gibson said in an interview at his home.

Gibson, 76, a retired sheriff's deputy, said of DeLay: "He's probably doing a good job. I don't have anything against him. Just something happened."

Here's the full text of DeGeurin's press statement today [via Lexis.com]:

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

DEGUERIN: For well over a year, Bill White and Steve Brittain have been doing everything they can, along with Congressman DeLay, to cooperate with Ronnie Earle's office and to explain to them that there's no crime here. Tom DeLay didn't do anything wrong.

As many of you know, I represented Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 12 years ago. And, to me, this seems like what Yogi Berra said: "It's deja vous all over again."

That was a political prosecution. And this is political prosecution. There's no crime that's been committed. Tom DeLay didn't do anything wrong. He has cooperated to the extent of even waiving the statute of limitations to the extent of answering questions on the record -- very recently.

I am confident that, when we get to trial, we'll show that Tom DeLay did nothing wrong. And so what I am going to ask the judge the first opportunity that I get is, as consistent with him being able to rule on pretrial motions, we want a trial right away. We want a trial before the end of the year because what Ronnie Earle -- he's attempting to destroy Tom DeLay.

Now, Tom DeLay changed the face of Texas politics. Nobody can deny that. But Ronnie Earle wants to destroy him because of it. Just the bringing of this indictment has caused Tom DeLay to have to step down from his leadership role in the House of Representatives. And that's what Ronnie Earle wants.

But I am telling you, mark my words, when we go to trial -- if we even get to trial, because the judge may throw this out -- when we get to trial, any fair jury is going to find that Tom DeLay did nothing wrong.

< Army Interrogator Sentenced | Jackboot Justice: Algerian Lofti Raissi >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    TL: Does the retention of Dick DeGuerin suggest that DeLay has abandoned any thought of pleading guilty, and is definitely going to fight? Also, I've seen it claimed that Kay Bailey Hutchison [no middle "n" I think] was repped by Mike Tigar and/or by Arch McColl, as well as that she had DeGuerin. Can you clarify?

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    Perhaps if your loyalty to Mr. DeGuerin is too much to allow you to slam DeLay -- one of the most corrupt and evil politicians to ever sully the House -- than you might as well refrain from any comments on the case at all. It would be the proper thing to do. Recall if you will the congressional redistricting in my state, Texas, which was done under the direction of DeLay, and which will largely eliminate any trace of Democracy around here for a long time to come. Mr. DeGuerin may be just doing his job, and he may be truly charming in his private life, but as far as I am concerned he can go f** himself.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Dick will be ready to take it for trial. That's what he does, tries cases. The more difficult the better. He doesn't represent people who cooperate. If DeLay decides to cooperate and take down others, another lawyer will take over. As to Kay Bailey Hutchison, I am pretty sure Dick was her main man. The Houston Chronicle said he was her "lead lawyer" on 2/18/94:
    Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle was supposed to appear on public television in Dallas, where he'd been asked to explain why he dropped his case against Hutchison last week. Hutchison's side wanted to respond, and offered to put their lead lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, on the air with Earle.
    The National Law Journal reported on 12/11/95:
    Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, accused of misusing government resources in her Senate run while state treasurer, scooped up almmost $ 900,000 from thousands of donors -- and did so in only eight months. The money let her fund a Dream Team -- Michael E. Tigar, $ 57,500; Dick DeGuerin, $ 220,000; and four firms, including the D.C. office of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld L.L.P., $ 450,000 -- that made the $ 30,000 she spent on jury consultants superfluous: The government refused to proceed to trial after it lost a crucial evidentiary motion.
    On Aug. 19, 1994, it reported:
    U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison paid $ 1.08 million to counsel, including Houston's DeGuerin & Dickson and Dallas' McColl & McCulloch, to defeat charges of misusing state workers.
    So, yes, Tigar and McColl too.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    No way will I be silent. This site is a criminal defense site - I'll call it as I see it legally, and take extra care to bring out the defense side. That's what I do in real life and on tv, and I'll do it here. If Dick or another good friend weren't in the case, would I let politics and my distaste for DeLay trump my defense views? Probably - though I still wouldn't be calling for jail for him -only his resignation in disgrace.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    No, Lea-P, it does not mean "above the law." It means I'll be following the legal proceedings - TalkLeft is not a neutral site and never has been. See the "about page:
    TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.


    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Just so I understand: if DeLay's lawyer were someone you didn't know or didn't like, you'd bash him? BTW, love your site, I'm just a bit surprised. Good of you to be up front - never expected anything less.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Thanks to your blog, I now know who to call when in REAL trouble. Of course, money may be a problem but that won't stop me from calling. ;)

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#10)
    by Rational on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    This is part of the reason that the R's are winning they know they are in a fight while the " intellectuals" whimp out and are bought off by "friendship" for mercenaries with no principles and less concern for the body public. Bill Bennett didn't let family interfere with his vitriol against Clinton when his brother was leading the Clinton defense. But friendship with an individual who will prostitute his skills to defend to pervert the justice system to get some one who has done as much damage to the country and the world that was within his power gets a free ride because your "friend" is so base as to value cash and reputation over ethics and principles is, at best, disappointing. On Crooks and Liars they had Coulter on explaining how Democrats and liberals are unworthy of basic human consideration. The R's have declared war on humanity, the country and basic decency and you suggest that we ignore that because your "friend" will profit from promoting and defending a major instrument of the R's jihad. Much like the Oxford pacifist's in the prewar era history will judge that not to be noble but stupid. And not even for a Noble cause such as Peace and Pacifism but rather for refusing to admit that a "friend" has some serious moral and ethical failures.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Criminal defense lawyers are not prostitutes. Money is the least of our motives which is why except for those at the very top, we make less money than civil and corporate lawyers. We are liberty's last champion. We defend the constitutional rights of the accused and insist that the prosecution meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do that with pride and dedication. By protecting the rights of those you see as the lowest among us, we protect your rights as well. I am a criminal defense lawyer above all, and this site reflects that. The Constitution is more important than politics. I don't know if DeLay is guilty or not, that's for a jury to decide. But his trial must be fair and decided upon evidence lawfully obtained and presented in the courtroom, not on the internet. I am not rooting for DeLay - I hope the disgrace of this Indictment results in his resignation from politics for good. He is a disaster of a politician, and his legislative record on criminal justice issues is terrible. I am rooting for DeGuerin to provide the best defense possible.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#12)
    by Rational on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    But as the play "Judgement at Nuremburg" exposes that extremes of anything are not healthy. To defend an individual who has visited so much institutional evil upon the public not because they were framed, or other such principled reasons but only for cash. Or are you suggesting that your merc friend is doing this pro bono becasue he is so enthralled with the principle that the hammer is above the law? ( or to use his phrase "I am the government") Then for you to roll over and play possum because your friend has such weak principles that he has taken a sleaze for a client raises another set of disturbing questions. As for money not being an issue is this the reason that the poor and dispossessed end up so often being represented by lawyers who sleep through trails to only be rescued from death by journalism students? The well off never seem to have that problem.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Okay, I understand and admire your conviction to remain loyal to your friends, just because they are your friends. Reason enough. Loyalty is a very important character trait in my opinion, and we are all supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and it is possible that the American legal system still works, but in the name of freedom of expression, for those of us who don't happen to be on a friendship level with DeGuerin, can those of us who HATE DeLay and his lousy character, and every dishonest act he has ever participated in against the United States of America, who would thoroughly enjoy participating in an online discussion throughout this trial, have an open thread where we can trash him and your friend who is defending him?

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Gently Weeping....absolutely--I'll make one now.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    I am disappointed by this news. He may be your friend, but does that have to do with your not "slamming DeLay" anymore? Two lawyers can be the best of buddies and still have to face each other in court on opposite sides. Does this mean that as a lawyer, if you go up against a friend, you can't do your job to represent your client? Of course not. I do recognize there is a big distinction between representing a client and giving critique on a blog, but I will still have to wonder about your comments on other matters going forward. To your credit, you have let us know this is your position, although that may not occur to you to do every time you let a personal friendship get in the way of your "reporting" on things. I guess I don't understand why you should you pull your punches against your friend's client. DeLay is the client of your friend, NOT your friend's friend or relative. By attacking DeLay you do NOT attack his lawyer. You know that, I know that, and I'll bet your friend must know that too.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    "Criminal defense lawyers are not prostitutes. Money is the least of our motives which is why except for those at the very top, we make less money than civil and corporate lawyers..." -TalkLeft Your post, in its entirety, Ms. TalkLeft(happy yesterbirthday), was the epitome of what it means to be American. Shall we start executing all accused of evil, murderous, take-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the-rich, crimes, absent the proof required by law? I guess paying $120,000 to get a law education opens the eyes of even the dreary-minded to what being "American" is all about. My problem with your post is that your exposed sensibility, intelligence, and understanding of what constitutes the crux of the meaning of the word "rights" to the average American, is completely lost to me when juxtaposed against the damn-to-hell anything conservative, moral, or Republican slant of this blog. Needless to say, you have made a friend.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    You will always know. This happened once before, when my friend Joe Tacopina represented Bernie Kerik after his aborted nomination as Homeland Security Chief. I wrote essentially the same thing. In a non-political context, I wrote the same thing of Mickey Sherman in the Michael Skakel trial. I always try to report my personal connections to a case or its participants. Roy Black and Rush Limbaugh has been another. That still leaves about 90% of the cases I write about in which I don't have a personal connection, yet still go the extra mile to present the side of the defender.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kevin Hayden on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    I appreciate your stance, Jeralyn. I'm also an advocate of fair trials, even for weasels like DeLay. Let the evidence stand on its merits. I make no judgment on your friend for taking on a case for a guy like DeLay, but I'm rooting for Ronnie Earle to demonstrate he has the goods to back up the indictment. May the truth be the winner here.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    or the better tactician, as the American Criminal Justice System would have it

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Here's an Eric Alterman quote about loyalty from yesterday's Altercation "...there are some bloggers who see themselves as liberal/Democratic activists and others, like moi, who feel no responsibility whatever to anything but what they see to be the truth. Much of the time, in a presidency like this corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and ideologically obsessed one, those are not in conflict, but it matters anyway. ..." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9492010/#050928 Seems to me there's something amiss here in the placement of loyalties. Should loyalty to a friend trump loyalty to truthful expression? Putting loyalty to this super star lawyer above all else looks to me like another example of insiders (no matter what their political beliefs) covering each other's backs at the expense at all those little folks out there. (Kind of like the way the Senate operates) I appreciate your openness on this, but Delay has usually managed, one way or another, to silence opposition and with your playground style expression of loyalty to a friend Delay scores again.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    wait, brothers who spell their last names differently?? Delay is a sleazeball, but its going to be hard to get a conviction with the evidence thus far. I for one hope the Prosecution has more than a check.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#22)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    Those of you who, like me, dislike Delay, should be happy that he has a good lawyer. If no one would represent old Tom, he would be convicted, but there would always be doubt amongst some that he was actually guilty. I hope that Delay gets a stellar defense, and is then found guilty. I dont want there to be any doubt, or excuse that the prosecution is purely political. As a (former) public defender, I represented many people that I did not like. I still did my best to make the State PROVE THEIR CASE. One of the hardest parts of being a lawyer is that you dont get to make many of these decisions, the Judge and jury do. Those who blame the lawyers should wake up. Jim PPJ deserves as good a lawyer as Paul in LA, LWW and Soccerdad have an equal right to fairness and the rule of law. We should be thanking JM for disclosing her potential bias. Do you really want to critisize honesty?

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    That means I'll be reporting the news on the case and analyzing it legally, but I won't be slamming DeLay any more. Sorry, folks, but loyalty is loyalty. Just thought I'd be up front about it. I thank you and respect you for being upfront about this, but I question your decision. I also question what you mean by "slam", and what this means in general for your analysis of just about anyone. I would have hoped that your analysis itself is what would lead you to slam or not slam someone, and not your particular friendship or ideologies.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    Thanks for giving us the heads-up on your take on the case. Non-lawyers have a hard time understanding how lawyers can say, "I have a conflict of interest," which is what you have essentially done. Or in the British Parliamentary practice, you have "declared an interest." Your insights on trials are one of the main reasons I read this blog. Thanks for doing a good job.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Keylight says: "Two lawyers can be the best of buddies and still have to face each other in court on opposite sides." That's not the case with criminal defense lawyers. We only go up against the Government - or state prosecutors - not each other. Civil lawyers do that. I don't have any personal friends who are prosecutors or in law enforcement, never have, never will. There are several I like and respect professionally and many more I get along with, for the sake of my clients - but no "buddies."

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Delay will get the best verdict that money can buy.

    Re: DeGuerin Representing Tom DeLay (none / 0) (#27)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Che, That's what he hopes, but in trial, you never know what can happen.