Posted on 04/25/2003 6:33:28 AM PDT by Pern
The undercover officer who ran a controversial drug investigation in Tulia four years ago was indicted Thursday on charges of lying under oath during recent hearings to determine if the convictions he obtained were legitimate.
A three-count indictment handed up by a Swisher County grand jury accuses Tom Coleman, 43, of making false statements about legal problems he faced in another county while working for the Panhandle Drug Task Force.
"These were the three strongest cases," said Rod Hobson, a Lubbock attorney who is working as a special prosecutor on the Tulia investigation.
Coleman could not be reached for comment.
In the summer of 1999, Coleman's 18-month sting operation ended with the arrest of 46 residents of Tulia, a small town of 5,000 about 50 miles north of Lubbock. Some charges were later dismissed, but 38 people were convicted and 13 remain in prison.
Because 39 of those arrested were black, charges that the sting was racially motivated arose, but that was only part of the controversy.
All of the convictions were obtained solely on the testimony of Coleman, who worked alone, kept few notes, and had no audio or video surveillance evidence to support drug buys. During the pre-dawn roundup of the suspects, no cash or drugs were found, raising questions about the task force's characterization of them as "major dealers."
And, after most of the convictions and plea bargains were obtained, details of Coleman's checkered law enforcement history surfaced. In fact, while the Tulia sting was in progress, he was charged with theft of gasoline in Cochran County, where he had previously worked as a deputy sheriff.
Appellate attorneys argued that Coleman's problems were not disclosed at the time of the trials and therefore could not be used to cast doubt on his testimony. If Coleman gave false testimony during those trials, he could not be prosecuted now because of the statute of limitations.
Last month, in evidentiary hearings ordered by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to determine whether the convictions should be reconsidered, Coleman was questioned about when he knew he was facing a criminal charge and his actions afterward.
The indictment alleges that he gave conflicting testimony. At one point, he testified that he did not learn of the Cochran County theft charge until August 1998, but other testimony indicated he knew about it three months earlier but continued working as an undercover agent.
The indictment also alleges that he lied about stealing the gasoline in Cochran County and about contacting the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education to notify it of the charge against him.
Those hearings were scheduled to resume April 1, with more testimony from Coleman, but were halted when prosecutors agreed with defense lawyers that his testimony was unreliable.
Retired Judge Ron Chapman then ruled that Coleman "is simply not a credible witness under oath" and said he would recommend that the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside all 38 convictions and order new trials.
Hobson has said the state would dismiss the cases rather than retry them because there is no evidence against the individuals except Coleman's testimony.
If convicted, Coleman, who is no longer in law enforcement, faces up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of the three charges.
Not at all; it hasn't been lost unlike the repeated refrain on the dope of the morning threads. If it had been lost dope would be legal.
I don't separate the backers and their intentions from medical marijuana. They have overshadowed the medical benefit it may or may not have (and please, don't start posting a bunch of medical marijuana information...and I said, BECAUSE of the backers and their intentions I don't separate it.).
Wrong---relegalization of drugs would be the formal admission of the defeat that is already taking place.
Dude, you're good. Okay, as of this morning, dope was still unlegalized and is expected to remain unlegalized for many years to come.
Like that better?
Ah what the heck, as long as it remains illegal call it what you want.
Now we return to watching glaciers race, lichen's grow and the war on drugs be defeated.
You're into these word games, like the war on drugs has been lost, relegalization and stuff. Just trying to make you feel more comfortable with your substances being illegal.
[[crickets]]
That's a fact under any sane definition of what a "win" would be. Why won't you tell us your definition?
Concepts sink in slowly with you don't they. Dope is mon-relegalized, un-relegalized...illegal. Apparently the war hasn't been lost.
"[[crickets]]"
{{dog farts}}"
All CWOJackson's previous responses to such inquiries have been squirms, dodges, and evasions. Some things really do never change.
You really should at least try to make it a little harder. Sanity is not a concept you seem to totally grasp. Let's try to make it a little plainer for you. Under your idea of sane definitions, if the war on drugs was lost do you think:
1) your dope would be legal,
2) your dope wouldn't be legal,
3) none of the above.
My understanding is that as long as their are people who wish to import, manufacture and distribute ILLEGAL drugs, the war will continue. And I also believe the war is going very well because very morning dope is still illegal and won't be any time soon.
That dope is still illegal. See, for me everyday is a win and for you, well every day is a bummer.
You're starting to see the light. Tommorow morning your dope will still be illegal. Same with next week, next month and for many years to come. Some things really do never change.
Free non-violent offenders first. Provide treatment to remaining users in jail second and parole those who were able. Consolodate and close prisons next.
That dope is still illegal.
Why did you deny earlier in the thread that this was not your definition of a win?
Cowardice is as cowardice does.
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.