Texas Court Overturns Conviction of DeLay Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Tom DeLay was the very symbol of Congressional power and, in the view of his detractors, excess. His political career collapsed in 2005 when Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican who was the House majority leader, was indicted on money-laundering charges that resulted in a three-year prison sentence. But Mr. DeLay's long and colorful life took another turn on Thursday as a Texas appeals court threw out the November 2010 verdict, ruling that what he was convicted of - laundering corporate contributions to divert money to elect Republicans to the State Legislature - did not violate any state laws. Mr. DeLay, as it turned out, was in Washington at a luncheon with his former Republican colleagues when the decision was announced. The former congressman, known as the Hammer for a political style that embraced hard-edge political tactics and a relationship with Washington lobbyists that invited scrutiny from prosecutors, was nothing short of jubilant, praising God and belittling Democrats and prosecutors for making such an effort to go after him. "I just thank the Lord for carrying me through all of this," Mr. DeLay told reporters as he left a meeting of the Texas Republican delegation. It really drove my detractors crazy because I had the joy of Jesus in me, and they didn't understand it. The decision by the Third Court of Appeals, which voted 2 to 1 on party lines, was the latest time that a high-profile prosecution of an elected official invoking unusual legal theories has been stymied by an appeals court or stumbled in the legal process. Others who avoided convictions or had them overturned include former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. From the start, many Republicans had denounced this prosecution as politically motivated overreach. Still, given the long list of ethical questions that have clouded Mr. DeLay's career - the former congressman said he had spent nearly $12 million on legal bills, fending off everything from the Congressional ethics committee to the Department of Justice - the decision appears to fall short of a complete ethical cleansing. When he stepped down as majority leader in 2005, and later decided not to seek re-election from his district in Sugarland, Mr. DeLay, now 66, faced not only the indictment in Texas but also an investigation by the Department of Justice into his relationship with Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist at the heart of an ethics investigation. The Justice Department never brought charges against Mr. DeLay for, among other things, accepting gifts from Mr. Abramoff like a 10-day golf trip to Scotland and England for Mr. DeLay, his wife and some staff members. Mr. DeLay's lawyer, Brian W. Wice, said that the investigations had "ruined his life in large part," but that Mr. DeLay viewed the decision as a vindication - a chance to restart his career. "Now that this sword of Damocles has been removed, I would think he could do almost anything he wanted to do," he said. Mr. DeLay has been free on a $10,000 bond. He has been anything but low profile, delivering speeches, offering consulting advice, writing a blog and - in a career turn that might have eclipsed his work in Washington - appearing on "Dancing With the Stars" while wearing a vest with leopard trim. "They never got rid of me," Mr. DeLay said. You may see my shadow or footprints around over the last seven years. I've been active. Mr. DeLay was convicted with two associates of funneling $190,000 in corporate contributions through the Republican National Committee to Republicans running for the State Legislature in 2002. The election had national implications: Mr. DeLay was looking to lock in Republican control of the Legislature as it prepared to redraw Congressional district lines. And after that election, Republicans in Texas pushed through a redistricting plan that markedly changed the playing field in favor of Republicans, strengthening Mr. DeLay's control in Washington. This was the first time that prosecutors in Texas had attempted to use a money-laundering statute against a politician charged with trying to circumvent the state ban on corporate contributions that has been in place since 2003. Mr. DeLay never denied he engaged in the practices described in the indictment, but said they were common and legally accepted campaign practices. In its decision, the court flatly rejected the case brought against him. "The evidence was legally insufficient to support DeLay's convictions," Justice Melissa Goodwin wrote for the majority. The fundamental problem with the state's case was its failure to prove proceeds of criminal activity. The Travis County district attorney's office said it was considering whether to appeal to the full Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. "We are concerned and disappointed that two judges substituted their assessment of the facts for that of 12 jurors who personally heard the testimony of over 40 witnesses over the course of several weeks and found that the evidence was sufficient and proved DeLay's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the office said. Mr. Wice, who described himself as a close friend and "a consigliere" to Mr. DeLay - "I've been doing this for 30 years and you want to win them all, but I never wanted to win one more than this one" - said that he did not expect the appeals court to overturn the decision, and that he thought it unlikely they would even take it up. "I've clerked at that court, I've followed it since the Truman administration," he said. I am confident that they are not going to look at the case. You didn't need to be a legal genius to see that the money-laundering statute doesn't apply here. As he talked to reporters, Mr. DeLay traced his problems back to 1995, when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began filing ethics charges against him. "I have raised and spent on legal fees over that period over $12 million," he said. But that's what they wanted to do, they wanted to destroy me. Sarah Wheaton contributed reporting. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Senator John Edwards had a conviction overturned. The jury in his case failed to reach a verdict on five of six counts of campaign finance fraud (he was acquitted of the sixth) and the case was not retried.