TexasCHLforum.com

Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

Case dismissed before trial.

tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

The last charge was dismissed as of this morning.

He still had to spend a lot of money, time, effort and energy fighting bogus charges. I think that is the point.

The Austin lefty-bots are defending their DUI heroes in the prosecutor's office by saying that the Travis County DA recused itself of the prosecution and it was taken over by Republicans who continued to push the case. Not sure how to respond to that, but I'm sure they are leaving out key facts.

tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

Today's article about the Perry charges indicated that he spent around $1,000,000 fighting the charges.

My point is that the DA that brought the charges should pay the bill.

tomneal wrote:Today's article about the Perry charges indicated that he spent around $1,000,000 fighting the charges.

My point is that the DA that brought the charges should pay the bill.

I understood and agree with your point.
My point is that isn't enough punishment and they shouldn't be allowed to remain in their profession and allowed to continue to abuse their power.

It was better when an elected public official who was caught in a hideous lapse, like this drunk was, would resign in disgrace and the less said the better.

Governor Perry was caught trying to restore public integrity the only way he could, and instead of being ashamed and resigning, these communist hippies in Austin tried to get back at him with appallingly bogus charges that it took Criminal Appeals to put a stop to.

I wonder if abuse of process or malicious prosecution counts would be appropriate, or whether the Grand Jury indictment gives them an out.

According to a story on FOX News, he spent more than $2 million for his defense lawyers.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02 ... cmp=hplnws

According to a story on FOX News, he spent more than $2 million for his defense lawyers.

Sorry. I miss read.

I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

I am ok with this but where would you stop?
What do you do with the 1st judge that didn't throw out the case?

tomneal wrote:

According to a story on FOX News, he spent more than $2 million for his defense lawyers.

Sorry. I miss read.

I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

I am ok with this but where would you stop?
What do you do with the 1st judge that didn't throw out the case?

Good question and I think you know not a simple answer. I believe that judges have immunity. I am not sure about prosecutors.
I would think the 1st judge would have to base their decision on the law, not the facts of the case.
Getting a little off topic, but I can only think of one recent case where the DA was actually charged and removed for malicious prosecution.
I think it needs to happen more often.

You don't want the gov after you. They have infinite time and money. Unless your name is Hillary.

WildBill wrote:

tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.

Absolutely!

Chas.

tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.

It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent

If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.

I only have one quibble...... How are you to be "found innocent?"

The DA/AG has the burden of proving guilt. If he/she is unable to prove guilt, then you are by default not guilty. How do you upgrade that to proving innocence, and who has the burden for that proof - the defense or the prosecution? I'm willing to bet that no prosecutor will take the burden of proving innocence for the person he just tried to jail unless ordered to do so by a judge. And if he has to do it under compulsion, how good of a job is he going to do of it? And de-facto, "not guilty" IS "innocent". I would amend your last sentence to say that if you are found not-guilty, the DA pays your defense bill. And if you are guilty, you pay the state's bill. Loser pays would significantly reduce all kinds of litigation, in both the civil and criminal realms.