|
Edit: Found a link to a news article that links to a copy of the indictment. http://kxan.com/2014/08/15/texas-governor-rick-perry-indicted-by-grand-jury/ Edit 2: FYI Perry is being charged with two counts (or crimes). The first count is Abuse of Official Capacity (Texas Penal Code 39.02). Because the amount alleged to be misused is more than $200,000 its a first degree felony. First degree felonies in Texas are punished by a term of imprisonment from 5-99 years. To prove his case, the prosecutor must prove that Perry misused government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the Perry's custody or possession by virtue of his office or employment. Looking at the definition of "misuse" it'll be interesting to see how the State intends to prove Perry misused government property through a veto. The second count is Coercion of a Public Servant (Texas Penal Code 36.03). Typically, it is a Class A misdemeanor unless the coercion is a threat to commit a felony (the felony in this case being Abuse of Official Capacity I guess) bumping it up to a Third Degree Felony. The range of punishment in Texas for a third degree felony is a term of imprisonment not less than 2 nor more than 10 years. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Aug 16, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 16, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:While a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich they didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg? Edited for clarity: If you're talking about her removal, the grand jury didn't return a true bill against Lehmburg because her case never went in front of a grand jury. Trials to remove public officials in Texas are civil cases (see Subchapter B in Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code). If you're talking about her allegation of official misconduct, I believe that was reviewed by a grand jury but remember that grand juries only get to listen to whatever evidence and recommendations are given to them by a prosecutor. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases by only showing them evidence to support that view. Trabisnikof posted:Wait, how on earth did we make it a removable offense for all those people to be intoxicated off-duty? Even in 1987 I thought Texas was pretty pro-booze. If memory serves a lot of Texas statutes were recodified in 1987 (which is why if you look through the code you'll see a lot of the statutes were enacted by the 70th legislature). I don't have time to look up the legislative history of 87.013, but if I had to guess I'd say the original statute dealing with grounds for removal probably predates Prohibition and has just never been updated. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
According to Grits for Breakfast (very well regarded Texas criminal defense blog), Rick Perry's attorneys are filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging the statutes he is charged under are unconstitutional. There's a link to the Habeas writ in the blog. Edit: FYI, in Texas challenges to test the sufficiency of an indictment before trial are normally done by a Motion to Quash rather than a Habeas Writ. The general procedure is that you file the motion challenging the constitutionality of the statute, the trial court denies it, and you take the issue up on appeal if you lose at trial. The advantage to Perry in filing the Habeas Writ is that a Writ can be appealed up to the Court of Criminal Appeals before trial (which you can't do with a motion). The reason most defendants don't do that is that appellate courts are loathe to jump in and decide a case before trial. Of course, Rick Perry is not your typical defendant. GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 01:11
|
|