Posted on 09/07/2002 12:33:26 AM PDT by Houmatt
Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford was indicted Friday on allegations of lying under oath about whether he used foul language with subordinates. Hours later, Mayor Lee Brown suspended the first police chief in Houston in modern times to be charged with a crime.
If convicted, the chief, who also is a lawyer, could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
"Obviously, I'm not happy about it," Brown said. "As you know, we have a good police chief, a good department. ... Chief Bradford will proceed through the process, I'm assuming get himself a lawyer and go to trial and have a chance to tell his side of the story.
"Then it's my hope that he'll come back and continue to be our chief," the mayor continued. "I have confidence in Chief Bradford."
Brown appointed Tim Oettmeier, the city's inspector general and an assistant chief, as acting chief.
Department practice requires that officers who have been indicted be suspended with pay. While Bradford said he cannot be treated differently, he also maintained his innocence.
"I haven't done anything to perjure myself," Bradford said. "There's just no motive for me to go under oath and perjure myself ...
"This is the right thing to do. I need to step aside and allow the citizens of our city, our wonderful police department, to move forward. I'm an individual. I'm not above the law. And I do not want to do anything to impede or taint the reputation of the organization."
A Police Department official said Bradford is believed to be the only Houston police chief to be indicted in office. Former Chief Carroll Lynn, appointed in 1974 to reform the department and improve its image, was indicted after he left office and later sentenced to prison.
The allegation against Bradford stems from a rift between Bradford and suspended Capt. Mark Aguirre, the police supervisor in charge of last month's unrelated raid at a westside Kmart.
Bradford's troubles began with a letter of reprimand, punishing Aguirre for using profane and threatening language toward his subordinates at a supervisory meeting Aug. 21, 2001.
During the meeting Aguirre called supervisors in the South Central patrol division, which he oversees, "sons of bitches" and "lazy bastards," according to the letter of reprimand from Bradford dated Nov. 14, 2001.
Aguirre appealed the reprimand and was granted a hearing before the Civil Service Commission. Bradford testified under oath at that hearing that he had never used profanity with his subordinates.
After contradictory testimony by Assistant Chief J.L. Breshears, Aguirre asked Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to investigate whether Bradford committed aggravated perjury, which means he is accused of making a false statement during an official proceeding and that the false statement was material to the proceeding. The case was presented to a grand jury without charges.
The panel voted that the allegation was true, finding that "after being duly sworn, (Bradford) did, under oath, make a false statement ... that he had not called subordinates names in meetings, whereas in truth and in fact in a meeting on or about November 3, 2000, (Bradford) called subordinates `mother -------' and (Bradford) did make the statement with knowledge of the statement's meaning and with intent to deceive ... "
Prosecutor Don Smyth, who heads Rosenthal's Governmental Affairs Bureau, said holding a high-ranking officer under the microscope is not an easy task. But Smyth added that if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the chief committed perjury "then he will be convicted."
"It's a tough case to take any case to a grand jury involving allegations that your police department, the guys that you pay to protect you and serve you and put their life on the line for you, does any kind of criminal wrongdoing," Smyth said. "Just because it's a chief of police doesn't make it any less of a tugging at your heartstrings."
Bradford must post $5,000 bail on the charge, which is a third-degree felony. County records indicated the bond was posted by Bradford sometime Friday.
Rosenthal said Bradford was allowed to turn himself in without being arrested, as is typical in most white collar crimes and public integrity cases.
"He has to give fingerprints, everything else just like everybody else," Rosenthal said.
Smyth will handle the case but will report directly to Rosenthal, who will ultimately decide what recommendations to make in the case and will approve whether a plea bargain should be offered.
The case was randomly assigned to Judge Brian Rains in the 176th State District Court. Bradford's first court date could be within a week.
Rosenthal said he has not talked to Bradford or his attorneys.
"We'll be open to any suggestions his attorneys make." Rosenthal said. "And we'll consider everything in this case. The earmarks of this case look to me like it will have to be resolved by a trial. Certainly if we can resolve it by something other than trial that's fine with me."
The city will not provide a lawyer for Bradford's defense.
Legal Department policy forbids offering legal counsel to city employees charged with crimes, said First Assistant City Attorney Susan Taylor. Doing so would be tantamount to using public funds to provide a gift to someone facing a private matter, she said.
Oettmeier does not expect a difficult adjustment, saying he has attended most of the command staff meetings and is familiar with issues surrounding the department.
Oettmeier, a 29-year department veteran, has been an assistant chief heading the Office of Inspector General since 1998, when it was established by Mayor Brown. Brown created the department to investigate allegations of employee misconduct, both criminal and administrative.
At this point, it would be hard to not see Bradford's attitude toward Aguirre and the K-Mart raid as rather suspect.
He should have said "I don't ever recall using such profanity. It is against my beliefs to behave in such a manner."
Or, "I did not have profane words with that man, Mr. Aguirre."
After Clinton, I thought lying under oath was no big deal. I guess it's only okay to lie about sex and not weather you used profanity.
Yes, it is pure politics, but it is unrealistic to think that he didn't know that he had used foul language with his subordinates. Lying about something so small and irrelevant can get you in trouble, especially if you're under oath, and most especially if political forces are out to get you (rather like Mark Fuhrman's lie about using the "n"-word).
My thoughts, exactly. This is completely ridiculous. I don't condone lying under oath, but the charges, to begin with, how is that worse than what Clinton did? This is pathetic.
I think it goes back farther than that. The question should be: who did Aguirre offend?
It started with the chief's letter of reprimand to Aguirre for "using profane and threatening language toward his subordinates". From the article:
Aguirre called supervisors in the South Central patrol division, which he oversees, "sons of bitches" and "lazy bastards,"
Reading between the lines, it appears that Aguirre appealed to the Civil Service Commission, using the "everyone does it" defense. Bradford was probably asked if "he ever used profanity" in that context.
Since he didn't use the classic Clintonism ("I don't recall"), he really had no defense when contradicted by his own subordinates. So, Bradford was hoisted on his own petard.
I should never get on this forum before 7 a.m.
This Rosenthal guy doesn't sound like a prosecuting attorney to me. In fact, he talks as if he's pre-disposed to favor the defendant.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
I read the headline and thought H was for Honolulu. Book 'em Dan-o!
Funniest thing I've read in a while. Where can I send you an invoice for my coffee-soaked keyboard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.