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.
I just visit for the entertainment value.
I don't perform on command.
So you won't answer my questions. That is your God-given right---as it is mine to point out the intellectual cowardice of this nonresponse.
What would you propose? Free the drug offenders and replace them with real criminals? Or free the drug offenders, close a few prisons, and save some money?
Probably not straight out, but yes, I do expect abortion laws to change dramatically in the next ten years.
And before you ask, I don't expect the same thing to happen with drugs. There might be some legal simularities but the social dynamics are vastly different.
No, your question was, "What reason is there to think that any particular defendant was guilty as charged?" Guilt is determined by law.
The dictionary gives your definition as secondary to mine:
guilt·y adj.
1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act; deserving of blame; culpable: guilty of cheating; the guilty party.
2. Law. Adjudged to have committed a crime.
Now, was there reason to believe they did the crime? Personally, I don't know. But those closest to the case[...] decided unanimously that they were guilty.
Your previous reference to the OJ jury comes to mind here.
No contradiction there.
Times 8? Are you sure you don't want to investigate the jurors after all?
See, that's where you set yourself back many, many years. Most folks know what the long term intention of the medical marijuana drives is about; not the patient.
See, that's where you set yourself back many, many years. Most folks know what the long term intention of the medical marijuana drives is about; not the patient.
Dude if you can tell that from anything I've said on FR you need to change suppliers.
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.