E-mail:

That oft quoted phrase about what a Grand Jury can do by indicting ham sandwiches may obscure the fact that “conspiracy” is not as difficult to prove as may be supposed from the comments I have read in The Corner. I have been on the receiving end (as trial counsel, I hasten to say) of such indictments. The cardinal requirement for a conspiracy indictment to stand up in court (so as to beat a motion to dismiss at the end of The People’s case) is a showing, at least sufficient to allow a jury to consider the evidence, is: Was there an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy? What’s overt? Ah, there is the stuff of appeals! Did the jury have an overt act before it upon which it could have reasonably found that the defendant acted in support of a conspiracy? This ought to give you an idea of whether the jury pool will be “pro-DeLay” or “anti-”. In turn you’ll have to look at whether the District Attorney, an elected official feels confident that he is not upsetting his electoral base -from which that jury pool will be drawn. Sadly (because modern politics on the national scene has become a blood sport) Tom DeLay is in serious trouble unless an appellate court dismisses the indictment.