Ex-agent indicted in Tulia drug cases

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.

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.

Drug Czar is Cleared of Campaign Violation

Las Vegas Sun ^ | April 24, 2003 | Cy Ryan

Drug Czar is Cleared of Campaign Violation

Carson City -- The state attorney general's office says Nevada can't discipline federal drug czar John Walters for failing to file campaign expense reports in his successful effort to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment to legalize possession small amounts of marijuana.

But the Marijuana Policy Project of Washington says the attorney general's "legal analysis is incorrect," Steve Fox, its director of government relations for the project, said.

Fox said the opinion from the office of Attorney General Brian Sandoval, a Republican, seemed to be looking for a way to avoid disciplining a member of the GOP Bush administration.

Jennifer De Vallance, a spokeswoman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the A.G.'s opinion affirms the "right of the director (Walters) to act in a capacity to educate the people of the dangers of marijuana."

She said this was "another victory for the citizens of Nevada." Jonathan L. Andrews, special assistant attorney general, issued a legal opinion Wednesday to the secretary of state's office that Walters is immune from filing campaign and expense reports because he was acting within the scope of his duties.

The marijuana group had asked Secretary of State Dean Heller to require Walters to file campaign reports in connection with his visits to Las Vegas and Reno to campaign against Question 9 on the ballot and to fine Walters if he failed.

Fox said he hoped Heller would not follow the advice of the attorney general's office. But Heller said the attorney general's office is his legal adviser and he must take his counsel.

Andrews wrote that federal courts have regularly held a federal officer immune from state action when exercising the function of his office. He cited an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that talks about the duties a federal official is authorized to perform.

"The director of the White House office of National Drug Control Policy is immune from Nevada's campaign and expenditure reporting laws when acting within the scope of his official function," Andrews wrote.

The opinion complained about Walters' "excessive federal intervention in his effort to influence a Nevada election" But he said a court would find Walters immune from Nevada's campaign and expenditure reporting laws.

Fox said he was happy to hear the criticism of Walters but he challenged the Andrews' opinion, saying it relied on an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case. He said his research shows there are cases in the last 30 years that take a different view.

More recent Supreme Court and other federal court decisions say federal officials must follow state laws "as long as it doesn't frustrate their performance," Fox said. Filing a campaign report doesn't "frustrate the performance" of Walters in his duty, he said.

"He (Walters) should be expected to follow the law."

The marijuana group complained Walters spent money traveling from Washington to Las Vegas and Reno campaigning against Question 9. He also authorized and approved a series of anti-marijuana commercials.

He should have submitted campaign expense and contribution reports to comply with Nevada law, the group contends.

But Edward Jurith, general counsel for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, successfully argued that Walters was acting within the scope of his duties and was immune from enforcement of Nevada election laws.

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.