January 8th, 2009
02:20 PM ET
11 years ago

Larry Craig won't appeal to higher court, lawyer says

Craig may be out of options.

Craig may be out of options.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (CNN) – Former Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho may have run out of options in a quest to reverse his guilty plea to a 2007 charge of disorderly conduct in a bathroom stall.

Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, where an undercover police officer accused him of soliciting sex.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected Craig's latest effort to withdraw the guilty plea December 9. Thursday marks the one-month deadline for filing an appeal.

His Minneapolis-based attorney, Thomas Kelly, told CNN on Thursday that Craig will not appeal to the state's Supreme Court, saying that effort would be "fruitless."

"There's no automatic right to have your appeal heard by the Supreme Court," Kelly said, "and the Supreme Court rather limits its acceptances of cases for further review."

Kelly said appeals heard by the state's high court tend to be cases where "novel questions" are involved, where there are clear differences between other appeals court rulings, or where cases could have "statewide significance.

"This case doesn't fit any of those so it would have been fruitless to file a petition for review," Kelly added. "We understand that, so that's why the decision was made."

Filed under: Larry Craig
soundoff (80 Responses)
  1. Greg in Denver

    I feel badly for his wife. Poor woman is married to a closet 'Mo and comforts herself by remaining in a deep state of denial.

    I still can't get over the video of this loser mocking Bill Clinton for being "a very bad boy." Craig is the ultimate hypocrite!

    January 8, 2009 06:57 pm at 6:57 pm |
  2. honestly

    Can this guy finally get what he deserves????????

    January 8, 2009 07:00 pm at 7:00 pm |
  3. soundboy_Jeff

    aww… and here I was looking forward to the comedic value of the ACLU's "The door was closed and therefore he didn't break any laws, if he wanted to have sex in the men's room… it was his right to do so" defense.

    married republicans all over the country were probably looking forward to that defense as well… and not for comedic value.

    January 8, 2009 07:13 pm at 7:13 pm |
  4. Salt & Pepper

    If he was NOT guilty in the first place, any sensable/logical person would have fought it and NOT pleaded guilty. That, IMO, MAKES him guilty. I would NEVER plead guilty to something I had not done no matter how bad the accusation was! HE'S guilty and just "wanted it to go away!???" It does not make sense unless he was trying to hide it. Admit to it and let your wife move on to be with someone who truly cares for her!

    January 8, 2009 07:14 pm at 7:14 pm |
  5. Salt & Pepper

    Oh,...AND another thing! When a "gentleman" goes to the restroom, there is ONLY SO FAR you can widen your "stance" because your feet are SUPPOSED to be in your pants and THEY are down around YOUR ankles! Try it sometime! You CAN'T have a "wide stance" when in that situation unless one of your feet are OUT of your pant leg.

    January 8, 2009 07:19 pm at 7:19 pm |
1 2 3 4