Perry’s Prosecutor: He Threatened Us By Criticizing Us!
From the Fort Worth Startlegram (that’s what natives call the Star-Telegram):
Gov. Rick Perry seems to be threatening to retaliate against grand jurors who indicted him for felony abuse-of-office and is misusing rules to try and toss out the charges before trial, a special prosecutor alleged in a filing made public Monday.
“The defendant’s own words have instilled a concern for all persons who participated in the grand jury investigation,” Michael McCrum, Perry’s special prosecutor, said in the filing, asking a state judge to deny the governor’s request for grand jury transcripts.
. . . .
[Perry] held a press conference the day after his Aug. 15 indictment saying: “This farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and those responsible will be held accountable.”
“This comment struck many listeners as a threat against the members of the grand jury and all of those associated with the grand jury process,” McCrum said.
Somewhere in Rick Perry’s camp, a conversation very much like this has no doubt taken place:
Person #1: Oh, Governor Perry threatened the grand jury! Better file a new charge, McCrum!
Person #2: Don’t give him any ideas.
“Person #2” has it right. You can’t put anything past a prosecutor so partisan and irresponsible that he would file such an “unbelievably ridiculous” indictment (Jonathan Chait’s characterization).
Neal Rauhauser often accused me of “witness intimidation” for . . . criticizing Nadia Naffe. McCrum’s latest move follows the Rauhauser Two-Step:
- Make a ridiculous criminal accusation against the target.
- If the target criticizes you, claim “witness intimidation.”
McCrum is utterly shameless, and his behavior is utterly shameful. I hope a judge puts an end to this farce, and soon.
It’s Austin. No worries.
Tucson is a similar town in a largely red state. The Tucson shooter’s mother worked in the Democrat Sheriff’s office. She was able to block any attempt to treat her schizophrenic son involuntarily until he shot the Democrat Congresswoman. Then it was Sarah Palin’s fault.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:19 amThe judge in Perry’s case is running for re-election, which may be part of the reason the next hearing won’t be until Nov 7. I expect the judge to dismiss this case at some point. This may be the special prosecutor’s attempt to try to tarnish Perry in the court of public opinion and/or sway the judge before the hearing. I also think it’s a response to Perry’s request for a copy of the grand jury transcript. The Texas Tribune has more on that and I’m sure it caused the Austin Bar to hyperventilate.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:34 amThe Texas Tribune Article, if anyone is interested.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:36 amI’d get a grand jury transcript automatically along with the indictment at arraignment. Interesting rule that Texas has there.
nk (dbc370) — 11/4/2014 @ 7:54 amApparently it’s to protect the prosecutors, nk, who scare easily and get attacks of the vapors.
If this constitutes a threat, then so would merely entering a not guilty plea.
“OMG! Rick Perry intends to fight the charges! Who knows what that could mean, and how far he’d go? I need round-the-clock police protection.”
– Michael Crum, who gets nervous for his safety whenever one of his targets doesn’t plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/4/2014 @ 8:14 amWell, you’re even less permitted to go behind the indictment than you are to go behind the verdict. For bribery or coercion, I suppose, but why the jurors voted the way they did is between them and God. But I cannot see how the testimony, not the deliberations, does not fall under Brady v. Maryland and progeny at the very least. Even if the prosecutor does not intend to call any of the grand jury witnesses as prosecution witnesses at trial. It’s no different than eyewitness statements taken down by the police at a crime scene. But, then, all of Crum’s case is the drag on a cattle herd — dust, smell, noise, and … you know.
nk (dbc370) — 11/4/2014 @ 8:45 am“I hope a judge puts an end to this farce, and soon.”
I’m optimistic about the former (if that includes appellate judges). Not the latter.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/4/2014 @ 8:49 amAn honest judge (is that an oxymoron?) would throw this out with prejudice, and refer Crum to the State Bar for sanctions. I’m sure the State Bar could tie him up in hearings and depositions for a couple of years – if they felt kindly.
askeptic (efcf22) — 11/4/2014 @ 9:58 amIf anyone deserves to be Nifonged, it is McCrum(bum).
PCD (39058b) — 11/4/2014 @ 10:39 am