The Texas House and Senate budget bills, HB 1 and SB 1 -- which are the legislative budget requests compiled by the Legislative Budget Board from state agency strategic plans -- are now available on a very nice website put up by LBB.
There doesn't appear to be a press release or anything, but these are the "95%" budgets required by the 78th (2003 Legislature). They are for state fiscal years 06 and 07, constructed based on 95% of the budgets for fiscal years 04 and 05, except for certain program enrollment growth, prison growth and a few other things that are outside the cap. I'm sure other folks will be looking at the big picture, but let's take an initial look at the criminal justice budget requests.
A quick review shows one mildly postive development: TDCJ asked for creation of a new budget category called "treament alternatives to incarceration," requesting $27.3 million for that purpose over the next biennium. But that new money is partially offset by cuts in existing direct community supervision and prison diversion programs.
TDCJ actually budgeted a decline in overall funding to incarcerate felons next year, then a slight increase in 2007, but that's not realistic on its face unless the Legislature undertakes significant sentence restructuring. The Governor's office has said not to worry because the state could lease space from private facilities, but this budget includes a big decline, $25 million per year, in payments to private prisons and jails.
If the budget doesn't anticipate current growth, it also doesn't anticipate predictable cost increases from new penalty enhancements.
TDCJ proposes spending less money to supervise parolees even though, if the state spends less on direct incarceration, logically more offenders will be on parole. That should make everybody feel safer.
Probation services would be cut slightly, but that's insensible: again, to make the direct oversight costs decline, as the budget anticipates, community supervision expenses would have to increase.
Academic and vocational training would be cut by nearly 2/3 from the last budget.
No increases are budgeted for psychiatric care of inmates.
Academic and vocational training would be cut by nearly 2/3 from the 78th session budget.
No increases are proposed for the dramatically underfunded psychiatric care of inmates.
Cuts are proposed in "correctional industries" programs that let inmates work and earn money while inside.
Bottom line, this is not a realistic budget but a politically driven one. Because money will be tight and the state needs to spend cash on things like schools and healthcare, TDCJ's budet writers have succumbed to promoting the untenable fiction that it costs less to incarcerate people than it really does. It's somewhat easier for them to stand on such obfuscations now that the Legislature doesn't have an independent source of analysis on criminal justice policy. As the session progresses, though, I bet these bills move closer to reality-based budgeting.
UPDATE: A colleague points me to this non-prison-specific Statesman article from Saturday.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
No Place to Hide from Data Mining
Via David Nunez, a fine feature by American Radioworks, No Place to Hide, looks beyond cameras to new types of surveillance made possible by data mining techniques, some newly possible because of evolving technology, others honed through decades of consumer marketing. A sampling from one data privacy expert:
It's a detailed look at a seldom-examined subject. Here's the full transcript. See also Grits coverage on the frontiers of government surveillance using biometrics, gathered here.
"our lives are being recorded. It is like ... these electronic diaries are being kept by all these other people. ... That's new territory; we haven't been there before."There's plenty more, from 1968, when a whistleblower found "Army investigators filling file cabinets with dossiers on civil rights activists ... clipping newspaper stories about people giving anti-war speeches, even monitoring meetings at churches," to the controversial "Matrix" program (Texas declined to participate), to the Denver "spy files" case, to the CAPPS II program tracking everyday airline travelers, to how data mining is used to track actual terrorist extremists.
It's a detailed look at a seldom-examined subject. Here's the full transcript. See also Grits coverage on the frontiers of government surveillance using biometrics, gathered here.
Recipe for springing an innocent convict
Here's the recipe used by a big-time New York law firm to spring Ernest Willis, an innocent man, from Texas Death Row:
Years of appeals: 9
Hours: 8,431 (including staff and paralegal time)
Lawyers: 32 (including summer associates)
Expenses: About $3 million
Trips to Texas: 14
Outside Experts: 6
Visits to Death Row: 4
Mix together well with one vindictive prosecutor, one pig-headed appellate court, and one ethical federal judge. Bake at 400 degrees for 17 years. Best served up with a side of crow.
Check out the fine story in the American Lawyer for details. Via Howard Bashman
Years of appeals: 9
Hours: 8,431 (including staff and paralegal time)
Lawyers: 32 (including summer associates)
Expenses: About $3 million
Trips to Texas: 14
Outside Experts: 6
Visits to Death Row: 4
Mix together well with one vindictive prosecutor, one pig-headed appellate court, and one ethical federal judge. Bake at 400 degrees for 17 years. Best served up with a side of crow.
Check out the fine story in the American Lawyer for details. Via Howard Bashman
January Site Stuff
Thanks to everybody who's been visiting this site.
Grits had its highest ever traffic week last week with Rev. Bean guest blogging from the Tom Coleman perjury trial, averaging just over 400 people per day. (I'm told we can expect Alan's final installment later today, plus a longer, reflective piece in a forthcoming Texas Observer.) By tomorrow, Grits will have topped 12,000 visitors since I added the sitemeter in late October. Most impressive to me, today is the halfway point in January, and already Grits has exceeded its total visitors for December, which itself, despite a steep holiday decline, exceeded November's totals. A lot of new folks are finding the site. Please keep coming!
A few more folks are linking to the site, too, with Alan's guest blogging series providing a tremendous boost in both traffic and number of links to Grits. (I told him I think y'all like his writing better than mine.) The TTLB Ecosystem has boosted Grits from the "Adorable Rodent" to "Marauding Marsupial" category, at least for the time being. That's mostly because of generous linkage by Charles, Jeralyn, Pete, Libby, Loretta, Lauri - plus a couple that hadn't linked here before, BuzzFlash and Sisyphus Shrugged - to the Tom Coleman perjury trial coverage.
I left a comment responding to Grits' newly discovered, yet-to-be-updated shadow blog, The Gypsy Cop Blog, pointing "Buck" to my response to his post, but nothing new there, yet.
Finally, as mentioned previously, Grits has been nominated for Wampum's Koufax Award for "Best Single Issue Blog." I'd sort of noted it as a nice compliment, but now it looks like I may actually be in the running to reach the finals. My boss Will Harrell at ACLU of Texas is, naturally, a devoted Grits reader, and he sent out an email asking other readers to vote. Many did: Thank you so much, to Will and to those who voted! Everybody came in a pack (much to two-time winner Jeralyn's chagrin). Truth is, when I looked at the list of Grits voters, a couple of you I wonder whether you actually know any other single issue blogs! But I appreciate you voting me "best" either way. There are names among those voters from ACLU'ers, NAACP, Tulia Friends of Justice, Texas Inmate Family Association, prisoner re-entry programs, even one or two D.C. policy wonk types. That speaks to one of the things I think is special about this blog -- Grits is part of a movement for criminal justice reform in Texas along with a lot of groups listed in links section in the column to the right. The work I'm doing here is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle, and I'm glad the readers who voted for Grits think it's playing an important role. It appears voting is still open at Wampum. Go here to give Grits some love by leaving your vote in the comments section. While you're at it, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the other really cool competitor blogs listed there, click around, and update your bookmarks!
Grits had its highest ever traffic week last week with Rev. Bean guest blogging from the Tom Coleman perjury trial, averaging just over 400 people per day. (I'm told we can expect Alan's final installment later today, plus a longer, reflective piece in a forthcoming Texas Observer.) By tomorrow, Grits will have topped 12,000 visitors since I added the sitemeter in late October. Most impressive to me, today is the halfway point in January, and already Grits has exceeded its total visitors for December, which itself, despite a steep holiday decline, exceeded November's totals. A lot of new folks are finding the site. Please keep coming!
A few more folks are linking to the site, too, with Alan's guest blogging series providing a tremendous boost in both traffic and number of links to Grits. (I told him I think y'all like his writing better than mine.) The TTLB Ecosystem has boosted Grits from the "Adorable Rodent" to "Marauding Marsupial" category, at least for the time being. That's mostly because of generous linkage by Charles, Jeralyn, Pete, Libby, Loretta, Lauri - plus a couple that hadn't linked here before, BuzzFlash and Sisyphus Shrugged - to the Tom Coleman perjury trial coverage.
I left a comment responding to Grits' newly discovered, yet-to-be-updated shadow blog, The Gypsy Cop Blog, pointing "Buck" to my response to his post, but nothing new there, yet.
Finally, as mentioned previously, Grits has been nominated for Wampum's Koufax Award for "Best Single Issue Blog." I'd sort of noted it as a nice compliment, but now it looks like I may actually be in the running to reach the finals. My boss Will Harrell at ACLU of Texas is, naturally, a devoted Grits reader, and he sent out an email asking other readers to vote. Many did: Thank you so much, to Will and to those who voted! Everybody came in a pack (much to two-time winner Jeralyn's chagrin). Truth is, when I looked at the list of Grits voters, a couple of you I wonder whether you actually know any other single issue blogs! But I appreciate you voting me "best" either way. There are names among those voters from ACLU'ers, NAACP, Tulia Friends of Justice, Texas Inmate Family Association, prisoner re-entry programs, even one or two D.C. policy wonk types. That speaks to one of the things I think is special about this blog -- Grits is part of a movement for criminal justice reform in Texas along with a lot of groups listed in links section in the column to the right. The work I'm doing here is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle, and I'm glad the readers who voted for Grits think it's playing an important role. It appears voting is still open at Wampum. Go here to give Grits some love by leaving your vote in the comments section. While you're at it, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the other really cool competitor blogs listed there, click around, and update your bookmarks!
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Federal judge: Everyone liable for Tulia-style screwups
Buried amidst the avalanche of press surrounding the Tom Coleman perjury trial, a federal magistrate judge in Waco found in a ruling made public this week that all participating counties in Byrne-grant funded drug task forces are liable for the misconduct of undercover agents. From the Waco Herald-Tribune:
The ruling creates tremendous liability risks for counties participating in drug task forces all over the state. In Northeast Texas, for example, the Dogwood Trails drug task force busted a supposed 72 person crack ring, every last one of them black, in the tiny 17,000 person town of Palestine, in Anderson County. Neighboring Cherokee County is part of the task force, but not one arrest was made in their county from the two-year long investigation. However, if any litigation arises from the obvious racial profiling going on (see the comments here), after this ruling, Cherokee County will be fully liable. Same goes for Anderson County -- it's liable for the botched raid by the Dogwood Trails task force on the wrong home in Jacksonville in 2003.
My boss at ACLU of Texas, Will Harrell, summed up the result, and the Waco paper gave more background on ACLU's Hearne litigation, and how it relates to current events:
Other Texas counties already are deciding the liability posed by these rogue agencies outweighs any residual benefits.Today among Texas cities, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Lubbock, Amarillo, Denton and Laredo no longer participate in drug task forces. Texans from those jurisdictions deserve to benefit from federal Byrne grant money, too. Instead, 86% of Texas' Byrne grant funds still fund drug task forces, but in an increasingly smaller number of counties.
Lubbock's disbanding of the South Plains task force last year drew lots of media attention. Here's the explanation given for their actions by the Lubbock paper:
Topping the list of Lubbock's concerns was the tremendous level of liability risk for any and all of the cities involved.
As the department responsible for the $655,000 grant that funded the task force, the Lubbock force also was liable for the actions of participating officers in the 18 counties that comprise the task force, according to a police department statement.
One need only recall Amarillo's recent experience with the Tulia drug defendant cases to recognize the tremendous financial liability potential that Lubbock had to take into consideration in making its decision to withdraw. The resulting civil suit and legal settlement from the now-discredited Tulia drug sting cost Amarillo about $5 million.
In that respect, the decision to withdraw from the regional task force was a difficult one, but it also was the right one.
Indeed, getting rid of Byrne-funded regional narcotics task forces would be the right decision for the whole state, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recommended last month. Civil rights groups have long held the state should use Byrne money for other priorities, and ditch the task forces for good.
That would be real justice, finally, from the Tulia case.
Both counties comprising the former narcotics task force being sued for racial targeting and constitutional violations in Hearne will have to fight the case in federal court.That's an absolutely HUGE finding, much bigger, in the scheme of things, than Tom Coleman's perjury conviction. That means that, in cases like Tulia and Hearne, all counties in a drug task force are liable, even if they weren't remotely involved. In the Tulia case, 26 total counties were signed onto the task force, but only two agencies -- the Swisher County Sheriff who hired Tom Coleman and the Amarillo PD who supervised him -- had any direct role in the flawed drug sting. In Hearne, all the arrests and the manpower for the task force came from Roberston County, but the judge has now ruled that Limestone County may be sued for any misbehavior.
In a decision made public this week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske ruled Limestone County's involvement in the two-county South Central Texas Regional Narcotics Task Force merits their inclusion in the civil suit.
Limestone County attorney Michael Dixon had argued because the operation was carried out solely in Robertson County with no Limestone County personnel, Limestone County shouldn't be liable for what happened.
The ruling creates tremendous liability risks for counties participating in drug task forces all over the state. In Northeast Texas, for example, the Dogwood Trails drug task force busted a supposed 72 person crack ring, every last one of them black, in the tiny 17,000 person town of Palestine, in Anderson County. Neighboring Cherokee County is part of the task force, but not one arrest was made in their county from the two-year long investigation. However, if any litigation arises from the obvious racial profiling going on (see the comments here), after this ruling, Cherokee County will be fully liable. Same goes for Anderson County -- it's liable for the botched raid by the Dogwood Trails task force on the wrong home in Jacksonville in 2003.
My boss at ACLU of Texas, Will Harrell, summed up the result, and the Waco paper gave more background on ACLU's Hearne litigation, and how it relates to current events:
"What this ruling means is that counties and cities in these task forces are liable for what the yahoo cowboy law enforcement operations do 100 miles away," said Will Harrell, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.Well, yes, so did Tom Coleman and Sheriff Larry Stewart, and yet, here we are. In Hearne, as in Tulia and in Palestine, the drug task force targeted the black community almost exclusively. If Limestone County didn't want to be liable for that, they never should have signed on to the agreement.
The ACLU is leading the Hearne lawsuit filed by more than a dozen of the 28 people targeted during a drug sweep in November 2000. Their suit was profiled nationally in a PBS "Frontline" special last summer and the case has been compared to the Tulia scandal in the Texas Panhandle.
It is currently slated for trial in Waco this May.
All but one of the defendants were black and each case was based on the testimony of one informant, Derrick Megress, who has since retracted his testimony in numerous cases and said he was pressured by John Paschall, the Robertson County district attorney and former task force director.
The indictments eventually fell apart at the first trial four months later and all the defendants who hadn't settled in plea bargains were released.
Paschall, Robertson County officials, and Limestone County officials deny wrongdoing.
Other Texas counties already are deciding the liability posed by these rogue agencies outweighs any residual benefits.Today among Texas cities, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Lubbock, Amarillo, Denton and Laredo no longer participate in drug task forces. Texans from those jurisdictions deserve to benefit from federal Byrne grant money, too. Instead, 86% of Texas' Byrne grant funds still fund drug task forces, but in an increasingly smaller number of counties.
Lubbock's disbanding of the South Plains task force last year drew lots of media attention. Here's the explanation given for their actions by the Lubbock paper:
Topping the list of Lubbock's concerns was the tremendous level of liability risk for any and all of the cities involved.
As the department responsible for the $655,000 grant that funded the task force, the Lubbock force also was liable for the actions of participating officers in the 18 counties that comprise the task force, according to a police department statement.
One need only recall Amarillo's recent experience with the Tulia drug defendant cases to recognize the tremendous financial liability potential that Lubbock had to take into consideration in making its decision to withdraw. The resulting civil suit and legal settlement from the now-discredited Tulia drug sting cost Amarillo about $5 million.
In that respect, the decision to withdraw from the regional task force was a difficult one, but it also was the right one.
Indeed, getting rid of Byrne-funded regional narcotics task forces would be the right decision for the whole state, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recommended last month. Civil rights groups have long held the state should use Byrne money for other priorities, and ditch the task forces for good.
That would be real justice, finally, from the Tulia case.
Wireless service at the capitol
Charles Kuffner's writing about blogging the statehouse in 2005, and I left this link in the comments. Check it out -- the Texas capitol now has wireless access throughout, with none of the service limitations that come with cell phones down in the bowels of the building. Friends say it works great, and not just in the listed rooms but in the halls and everywhere else. That's way cool!
Now I have to upgrade my damn equipment, though. If it's not one thing it's another.
On Charles' site I predicted that legislative hearings will now be full of open laptops -- most will be bored lobbyists checking their email and looking at porn while they wait around to testify, but it'll be good for bloggers, too.
Now I have to upgrade my damn equipment, though. If it's not one thing it's another.
On Charles' site I predicted that legislative hearings will now be full of open laptops -- most will be bored lobbyists checking their email and looking at porn while they wait around to testify, but it'll be good for bloggers, too.
Can crime labs be trusted?
Think you've heard everything about problems at crime labs? Check this out:
"You can take a two-week course and you could call yourself an expert and get hired and make life-and-death tough decisions"CNN takes an in-depth look at the increasingly questionable reliability of long-used forensic science techniques. Everyone interested in the subject should read it. For more, see Grits coverage of a recent Texas Senate committee hearing on Texas crime labs, and ACLU of Texas testimony proposing reforms.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Coleman Jury: No prison time for lying cop
From Charles Kiker: Tom Coleman's sentence is 7 years, probated.
UPDATE: First word from AP.
NUTHER UPDATE: AP's later version of the story clarifies that the jury only recommended probation, but that the judge will make a final decision on Tuesday. The earlier story made Judge Gleason seem inclined to accept that recommendation, though. After a long week, BTW, Grits guest blogger Rev. Alan Bean will get some sleep tonight, and provide his wrap up over the weekend.
SATURDAY MORNING UPDATE: This local TV station had good coverage. The New York Times has a story here. Here's a story from Knight Ridder. The Amarillo Globe News just posted their coverage, NPR's All Things Considered covered the verdict.
UPDATE: First word from AP.
NUTHER UPDATE: AP's later version of the story clarifies that the jury only recommended probation, but that the judge will make a final decision on Tuesday. The earlier story made Judge Gleason seem inclined to accept that recommendation, though. After a long week, BTW, Grits guest blogger Rev. Alan Bean will get some sleep tonight, and provide his wrap up over the weekend.
SATURDAY MORNING UPDATE: This local TV station had good coverage. The New York Times has a story here. Here's a story from Knight Ridder. The Amarillo Globe News just posted their coverage, NPR's All Things Considered covered the verdict.
Wow!
Tom Coleman was convicted on one of two perjury counts today based on his testimony in the Tulia drug sting cases, but some folks think that's not enough. I can understand why Kizzie White is frustrated. Here's what she told AP reporter Betsy Blaney:
On July 22, 2001 when we gathered together without Kizzie -- and without a lot of other Tulians who were spending time in the state lockup based on nothing but Tom Coleman's word -- the idea that she and Joe Morgan and Creamie White would be free, and the biggest problem we'd have is whether Tom Coleman will be punished harshly enough seemed like the wildest of pipe dreams. But that's where we stand right at this moment as I write these words.
Tom Coleman deserves a stiff punishment. The issue isn't what he was lying about -- in this case whether he stole gas -- but why he was lying: to obtain a conviction at any cost.
History shows juries don't tend to give cops, even bad cops, stiff sentences. It will be hard not to be disappointed if this schmuck gets probation or community service. But I'm so happy Kizzie and Joe Moore are back home and Tom Coleman's been proven a liar once and for all. It's been an amazing trip.
``I feel like the prosecutor, he had the proof of evidence that he was guilty on both counts, but yet they acquitted him on the theft,'' said White, 27, who spent four years in prison before her 2003 release. ``Really, I don't understand it.''I get being that angry when you've been falsely accused by a liar, excuse me, by a convicted liar like Tom Coleman. Nobody gave her the same benefit of the doubt when she was in the defendant's chair. I've been involved with some aspect of the Tulia episode or another for a long time now, and compared to the darkest days, I wish I could reassure Kizzie that today the sun is shining brightly in that enormous West Texas sky.
On July 22, 2001 when we gathered together without Kizzie -- and without a lot of other Tulians who were spending time in the state lockup based on nothing but Tom Coleman's word -- the idea that she and Joe Morgan and Creamie White would be free, and the biggest problem we'd have is whether Tom Coleman will be punished harshly enough seemed like the wildest of pipe dreams. But that's where we stand right at this moment as I write these words.
Tom Coleman deserves a stiff punishment. The issue isn't what he was lying about -- in this case whether he stole gas -- but why he was lying: to obtain a conviction at any cost.
History shows juries don't tend to give cops, even bad cops, stiff sentences. It will be hard not to be disappointed if this schmuck gets probation or community service. But I'm so happy Kizzie and Joe Moore are back home and Tom Coleman's been proven a liar once and for all. It's been an amazing trip.
Tom Coleman Guilty of Perjury in Tulia Cases
Alan's father-in-law Rev. Charles Kiker, one of the original Tulia Friends of Justice, relays the word:
I'm sure we will! That's GREAT news! I wish I were in Tulia tonight to celebrate with my friends. But instead let me offer the Tulia-drug-sting victims, Tulia Friends of Justice and the special prosecutors team my hearty congratulations. This is a victory, years in the making, in which dozens, probably hundreds played a hand at different points in time. For some, like Nate Blakeslee, Alan Bean and Gary Gardner, pointing out Tom Coleman's lies has almost become its own cottage industry (it will have done so officially if Alan and Nate ever publish their respective books!).
What amazing, wonderful news.
Note to screenwriter Karen Croner: Jennifer Klar, a member of the Tulia defendants' legal team, came on board with the special prosecutors team for the Coleman perjury trial. A Coleman guilty-of-perjury verdict would make a great storybook ending to the upcoming movie about the Tulia case featuring Halle Berry.
Hurrah!
IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Note to self, don't count chickens. Let's see what the punishment phase brings. It's just so seldom a police officer would be found guilty of "testilying," I found myself elated at the overcome odds. If there's no prison time attached, though, it still won't feel very satisfying. Still, a conviction is very good news.
Just got a call from Alan Bean saying Coleman was found guilty of the perjury charge concerning when he knew he was charged with stealing gas in Cochran County, but not guilty concerning the charge of stealing gas then lying about it.(New: AP story is here.)
There were some ambiguities about the gas theft. And Coleman, like those he accused, is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Unlike those he accused, he got it. ...
The trial has just gone into the penalty phase. I'm sure you'll hear about it tomorrow.
I'm sure we will! That's GREAT news! I wish I were in Tulia tonight to celebrate with my friends. But instead let me offer the Tulia-drug-sting victims, Tulia Friends of Justice and the special prosecutors team my hearty congratulations. This is a victory, years in the making, in which dozens, probably hundreds played a hand at different points in time. For some, like Nate Blakeslee, Alan Bean and Gary Gardner, pointing out Tom Coleman's lies has almost become its own cottage industry (it will have done so officially if Alan and Nate ever publish their respective books!).
What amazing, wonderful news.
Note to screenwriter Karen Croner: Jennifer Klar, a member of the Tulia defendants' legal team, came on board with the special prosecutors team for the Coleman perjury trial. A Coleman guilty-of-perjury verdict would make a great storybook ending to the upcoming movie about the Tulia case featuring Halle Berry.
Hurrah!
IMMEDIATE UPDATE: Note to self, don't count chickens. Let's see what the punishment phase brings. It's just so seldom a police officer would be found guilty of "testilying," I found myself elated at the overcome odds. If there's no prison time attached, though, it still won't feel very satisfying. Still, a conviction is very good news.
Panhandle Prosecutor Punk'd
Tres Chicas has the story of another Texas Panhandle prosecutor in trouble with the law. Must be something in the water coming out of that Ogallala aquifer.
Legitimacy's premium
The South Texas Law Professor says that Andrea Yates' retrial is just the
premium we pay for the moral legitimacy of our criminal justice system. It's a statement that we will expend whatever is necessary to make sure it's fair. Sometimes the most egregious examples of "waste" are really the best examples of how much we really value integrity after all. Just shooting people would lower us to the level of the Taliban. Disallowing appeals could, in a sense, be the same thing.Well said. And happy one month blogiversary to the good professor.
MSM: Texas House Committee Wants to Abolish Tulia-style Task Forces
Finally, somebody picked up this amazing story: Tom Coleman's perjury trial is NOT the final chapter in the Tulia saga. The Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recommended abolishing Texas system of Tulia-style drug task forces in its Interim report, Tim Eaton of Scripps Howard wire service reported this morning. That committee is led by Chairman Terry Keel, a Republican former sheriff from Austin. The money quote:
In addition to the post on the report, see other, related Grits coverage:
"Continuing to sanction task force operations as stand-alone law enforcement entities with widespread authority to operate at will across multiple jurisdictional lines should not continue," the report read. "The current approach violates practically every sound principle of police oversight and accountability applicable to narcotics interdiction."Without gloating (too much), I should point out that Grits broke that story a month ago here, providing much more detail about the reasoning behind the committee's recommendations. I'm glad Tim's picked up on it, and maybe the rest of the state's MSM will give the story some attention now. It's amazingly timely with Tom Coleman's perjury trial in the news.
In addition to the post on the report, see other, related Grits coverage:
- Drug task force support dwindling
- Local officials miss boat on Byrne funding
- Jury: DPS appointed cronies to run task forces
- Feds cut Byrne grant money pot
- Byrne task forces not just a Texas problem
Coleman's Defense Continues: The Fight Gets Personal
This is the sixth installment in a series by Rev. Alan Bean of Tulia Friends of Justice guest blogging for Grits from the Tom Coleman perjury trial. See also coverage from the Texas Tech school paper, AP and the Amarillo paper. Also, news comes that one of the jurors is an ex-cop; hopefully he can retain his objectivity.
Rod Hobson is appalled that many of the defense attorneys appointed to Tulia drug sting clients rolled over and played dead in the courtroom. They were accommodating, polite and referential. They went through the motions in the sure knowledge that they were ordained to lose. Hobson doesn’t like losing and he doesn’t think he is doing his job until he hears a judge threaten him with contempt.
Rod Hobson is five-foot-four; Kurt Lechtenberger stands six-foot-eight. The two men clearly don’t like each other and if it came to blows I suspect Lechtenberger would hobble away with badly bruised kneecaps. But although the two men are on opposite ends of the growth chart they are equally pugnacious, competitive and intimidating. At one point this afternoon Judge David Gleason told the legal rivals that if they engaged in another shouting match he would see they would soon be sharing the same jail cell.
A few moments later, with the jury in recess, Gleason apologized for the jail cell remark but told Hobson and Lechtenberger that the bench would look upon any further sidebar sniping as contumacious (and we all know what that means, don’t we?) Hobson and Lechtenberger seemed relieved to know where the lines were drawn.
It was been obvious from the outset that if Tom Coleman couldn’t pay off his debts in Cochran County in 1998 he certainly can’t afford a troika of high-dollar lawyers. Yesterday it was revealed that John Read, Kurt Lechtenberger and Marvin Marshall are doing the Coleman gig pro bono.
John Read told the media early on that "Tom Coleman isn’t smart enough to lie" and there is little evidence that Lechtenberger and Marshall are impressed by Tom Coleman, the man. In his media rant last Friday afternoon Mr. Read suggested that Governor Perry’s decision to pardon thirty-five Tulia drug dealers was politically motivated. This view, though rarely voiced in public, enjoys broad mainstream support in the Panhandle.
This afternoon Kirk Lechtenberger placed the mild mannered John Nation in the witness box and upbraided him for allowing Yankee lawyers to mug a defenseless Tom Coleman during evidentiary hearings in 2003. "eight hours and two hundred pages of testimony for the defense," the towering attorney thundered, "zero hours for the defense."
"Witnesses cannot talk on their own," Lechtenberger reminded Nation, and "can’t on their own ask questions or correct things." If damaging or imprecise comments can be rephrased or retracted shortly after they are made it is possible for a client’s testimony to be rehabilitated. But since Nation made no attempt to cross-examine Coleman this opportunity had been lost.
Mr. Lechtenberger emphasized to the jury that Mitch Zamoff, the attorney who dissected Coleman at the Tulia evidentiary hearings, practiced law in Washington, D.C. Lechtenberger even wrote "Zamoff, Washington, D.C." on the blackboard so jurors would understand that Zamoff and company were Yankee lawyers.
As has happened so often during the past four days, Coleman’s attorneys threw down the gauntlet only to watch Rod Hobson wield it like a mace. Hobson had his colleague read through the most damning portions of Coleman’s testimony in March of 2003. "You will be Tom Coleman," Hobson told Nation, "and I’ll be the Washington D.C. lawyer, Mitch Zamoff."
During the next few moments jurors heard the ex-cop say "I didn’t steal no gas," and swear repeatedly that the charges against him in Cochran County had been "dreamed up" by a lying Sheriff, a lying Sheriff’s deputy and a lying county attorney. Even worse, Coleman’s regurgitated testimony clearly contradicted many of the statements made earlier in the day by Tom’s mother and Garry O. Smith, the attorney who had represented Coleman in Cochran County. In some respects this was even better than having the flesh and blood Coleman on the witness stand.
Read, Lechtenberger and Marshall are galled by the fact that Yankee lawyers like Mitch Zamoff, Yankee pundits like the New York Time’s Bob Herbert, and Yankee politicians like Hillary Clinton can manipulate public policy within the Republic of Texas.
Tom Coleman says he couldn’t live anywhere but Texas. He has appeared on Sixty-Minutes and a BBC documentary clad in a black cowboy hat, wearing western attire, riding horses, smacking a heavy bag in the gym, chewing tobacco, driving a pickup truck, and cross tie walking into the sunset. Tom ain’t no Yankee sissy.
With that in mind, John Read spent half an hour this morning evoking Tom’s idyllic childhood through a series of Polaroid pictures. Ostensibly, the Dallas attorney was demonstrating that, whatever J.C. Adams might say, Tom Coleman wouldn’t be caught dead in no brown cowboy hat. "Mrs. Coleman," Read said, "I want you to come up here and stand in front of the jury." Read flashed a Polaroid of a tiny Tom Coleman at the age of two, wearing a black cowboy hat, then handed the picture to a passive Irma Coleman. Then Read displayed a picture of Tom Coleman at age three wearing a black cowboy hat. Then it was Tom Coleman at age four wearing a black cowboy hat. A pattern was clearly emerging.
Working his way up to Coleman at sixteen Read declared, "Now Mrs. Coleman does this picture show your son sitting on his horse."
"I object to the relevancy of the horse," a bemused Hobson interjected.
But the color of Tom’s hat was a side issue. Read knew that a jury weary of a prolonged "paper trial" based on the dissection of obscure documents would be eager to see a few pictures. For a few blessed moments Tom was no longer a corrupt cop; he was a mother’s son, a toddler with pail and shovel, a young man galloping across a meadow on his first horse. Message: Tom is a human being; Tom is a Texan; Tom is a lot like ya’ll.
Swisher County DA Terry McEachern wasn’t big on research and trial preparation but he was highly proficient at pushing emotional buttons. Small town Texas law is about raw sentiment and blatant appeals to prejudice. Read, Marshall and Lechtenberger grew up with this system and like it.
Jennifer Klar is helping bring Tom Coleman to heel just as she did prior to the Tulia evidentiary hearings. Unheralded and anonymous, Klar spent thousands of hours leafing through heaps of trial transcripts, court documents, depositions and interview notes. Carefully, meticulously and relentlessly she boiled this material down to bite-sized chunks so Yankee lawyers like Mitch Zamoff could strut their hour on the Swisher County stage.
Jennifer Klar and Rod Hobson differ as much in temperament as Hobson and Lechtenberger differ in height. But they share a commitment to quaint virtues like truth and justice. They look at men like Larry Stewart, Jerry Massengill and Garry Smith, their blood begins to boil, and they get to work.
Tom Coleman’s lawyers believe in Texas. They dislike sophisticates, snobs and Yankees. They don’t much like Tom Coleman and they sure as hell don’t respect him; but they will go to great lengths to protect their man from his Merlot sipping tormentors because he’s as Texas as prairie oysters.
Rod Hobson believes in Texas too. He also believes in getting paid. But the Lubbock lawyer’s ultimate allegiance is to justice and, because of that, Sheriff Larry Stewart may soon be facing a grand jury. This fight is getting personal.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Rod Hobson is appalled that many of the defense attorneys appointed to Tulia drug sting clients rolled over and played dead in the courtroom. They were accommodating, polite and referential. They went through the motions in the sure knowledge that they were ordained to lose. Hobson doesn’t like losing and he doesn’t think he is doing his job until he hears a judge threaten him with contempt.
Rod Hobson is five-foot-four; Kurt Lechtenberger stands six-foot-eight. The two men clearly don’t like each other and if it came to blows I suspect Lechtenberger would hobble away with badly bruised kneecaps. But although the two men are on opposite ends of the growth chart they are equally pugnacious, competitive and intimidating. At one point this afternoon Judge David Gleason told the legal rivals that if they engaged in another shouting match he would see they would soon be sharing the same jail cell.
A few moments later, with the jury in recess, Gleason apologized for the jail cell remark but told Hobson and Lechtenberger that the bench would look upon any further sidebar sniping as contumacious (and we all know what that means, don’t we?) Hobson and Lechtenberger seemed relieved to know where the lines were drawn.
It was been obvious from the outset that if Tom Coleman couldn’t pay off his debts in Cochran County in 1998 he certainly can’t afford a troika of high-dollar lawyers. Yesterday it was revealed that John Read, Kurt Lechtenberger and Marvin Marshall are doing the Coleman gig pro bono.
John Read told the media early on that "Tom Coleman isn’t smart enough to lie" and there is little evidence that Lechtenberger and Marshall are impressed by Tom Coleman, the man. In his media rant last Friday afternoon Mr. Read suggested that Governor Perry’s decision to pardon thirty-five Tulia drug dealers was politically motivated. This view, though rarely voiced in public, enjoys broad mainstream support in the Panhandle.
This afternoon Kirk Lechtenberger placed the mild mannered John Nation in the witness box and upbraided him for allowing Yankee lawyers to mug a defenseless Tom Coleman during evidentiary hearings in 2003. "eight hours and two hundred pages of testimony for the defense," the towering attorney thundered, "zero hours for the defense."
"Witnesses cannot talk on their own," Lechtenberger reminded Nation, and "can’t on their own ask questions or correct things." If damaging or imprecise comments can be rephrased or retracted shortly after they are made it is possible for a client’s testimony to be rehabilitated. But since Nation made no attempt to cross-examine Coleman this opportunity had been lost.
Mr. Lechtenberger emphasized to the jury that Mitch Zamoff, the attorney who dissected Coleman at the Tulia evidentiary hearings, practiced law in Washington, D.C. Lechtenberger even wrote "Zamoff, Washington, D.C." on the blackboard so jurors would understand that Zamoff and company were Yankee lawyers.
As has happened so often during the past four days, Coleman’s attorneys threw down the gauntlet only to watch Rod Hobson wield it like a mace. Hobson had his colleague read through the most damning portions of Coleman’s testimony in March of 2003. "You will be Tom Coleman," Hobson told Nation, "and I’ll be the Washington D.C. lawyer, Mitch Zamoff."
During the next few moments jurors heard the ex-cop say "I didn’t steal no gas," and swear repeatedly that the charges against him in Cochran County had been "dreamed up" by a lying Sheriff, a lying Sheriff’s deputy and a lying county attorney. Even worse, Coleman’s regurgitated testimony clearly contradicted many of the statements made earlier in the day by Tom’s mother and Garry O. Smith, the attorney who had represented Coleman in Cochran County. In some respects this was even better than having the flesh and blood Coleman on the witness stand.
Read, Lechtenberger and Marshall are galled by the fact that Yankee lawyers like Mitch Zamoff, Yankee pundits like the New York Time’s Bob Herbert, and Yankee politicians like Hillary Clinton can manipulate public policy within the Republic of Texas.
Tom Coleman says he couldn’t live anywhere but Texas. He has appeared on Sixty-Minutes and a BBC documentary clad in a black cowboy hat, wearing western attire, riding horses, smacking a heavy bag in the gym, chewing tobacco, driving a pickup truck, and cross tie walking into the sunset. Tom ain’t no Yankee sissy.
With that in mind, John Read spent half an hour this morning evoking Tom’s idyllic childhood through a series of Polaroid pictures. Ostensibly, the Dallas attorney was demonstrating that, whatever J.C. Adams might say, Tom Coleman wouldn’t be caught dead in no brown cowboy hat. "Mrs. Coleman," Read said, "I want you to come up here and stand in front of the jury." Read flashed a Polaroid of a tiny Tom Coleman at the age of two, wearing a black cowboy hat, then handed the picture to a passive Irma Coleman. Then Read displayed a picture of Tom Coleman at age three wearing a black cowboy hat. Then it was Tom Coleman at age four wearing a black cowboy hat. A pattern was clearly emerging.
Working his way up to Coleman at sixteen Read declared, "Now Mrs. Coleman does this picture show your son sitting on his horse."
"I object to the relevancy of the horse," a bemused Hobson interjected.
But the color of Tom’s hat was a side issue. Read knew that a jury weary of a prolonged "paper trial" based on the dissection of obscure documents would be eager to see a few pictures. For a few blessed moments Tom was no longer a corrupt cop; he was a mother’s son, a toddler with pail and shovel, a young man galloping across a meadow on his first horse. Message: Tom is a human being; Tom is a Texan; Tom is a lot like ya’ll.
Swisher County DA Terry McEachern wasn’t big on research and trial preparation but he was highly proficient at pushing emotional buttons. Small town Texas law is about raw sentiment and blatant appeals to prejudice. Read, Marshall and Lechtenberger grew up with this system and like it.
Jennifer Klar is helping bring Tom Coleman to heel just as she did prior to the Tulia evidentiary hearings. Unheralded and anonymous, Klar spent thousands of hours leafing through heaps of trial transcripts, court documents, depositions and interview notes. Carefully, meticulously and relentlessly she boiled this material down to bite-sized chunks so Yankee lawyers like Mitch Zamoff could strut their hour on the Swisher County stage.
Jennifer Klar and Rod Hobson differ as much in temperament as Hobson and Lechtenberger differ in height. But they share a commitment to quaint virtues like truth and justice. They look at men like Larry Stewart, Jerry Massengill and Garry Smith, their blood begins to boil, and they get to work.
Tom Coleman’s lawyers believe in Texas. They dislike sophisticates, snobs and Yankees. They don’t much like Tom Coleman and they sure as hell don’t respect him; but they will go to great lengths to protect their man from his Merlot sipping tormentors because he’s as Texas as prairie oysters.
Rod Hobson believes in Texas too. He also believes in getting paid. But the Lubbock lawyer’s ultimate allegiance is to justice and, because of that, Sheriff Larry Stewart may soon be facing a grand jury. This fight is getting personal.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Special Prosecutor: Sheriff Stewart Needs a Lawyer
This is the fifth installment of Rev. Alan Bean's series guest blogging the Tom Coleman perjury trial. See also coverage by the Amarillo paper, AP, and a local TV station.
"In light of some of the comments that he has made, Judge, I suggest that you appoint Mr. Stewart a Lawyer."
This terse remark from Lubbock attorney Rod Hobson established the dramatic apex for a day dripping with breathtaking developments. The evening news in Lubbock and Amarillo sizzles with speculation Swisher County Sheriff Larry Stewart will soon be indicted on perjury charges just like the hapless undercover officer he has so staunchly defended. A tad premature perhaps, but the Swisher County Sheriff is in deep trouble.
Judge David Gleason took Mr. Hobson’s suggestion to heart and by the end of the day Larry Pickard Stewart was represented by one of Lubbock’s premier attorneys.
For the first time in this five-year odyssey the legal interests of Larry Stewart and Tom Coleman have been severed. Coleman’s attorneys watched contentedly as Mr. Hobson savaged the defenseless Sheriff with embarrassing questions and cutting sidebar comments. Larry Stewart stood alone.
When court reconvened following the lunch break, Mr. Stewart had yielded his place on the witness stand to Jerry Massengill, a Sergeant with the Amarillo Police Force who served as Coleman’s supervisor during the eighteen-month Tulia investigation.
If Tom Coleman’s Dream Team had the best interests of their client at heart they would have poked a few holes in the state’s case before shutting things down. Coleman might have been convicted but you don’t attach a stiff sentence to a two-bit crime in a half-bit town.
A steady stream of moths has been drawn to the Tulia flame ever since the Coleman sting morphed into a national story in the fall of 2000. Coleman’s current handlers have been dazzled by the knowledge that whoever defended Coleman in this high profile trial would be vaulted into the media spotlight.
But those who would champion Coleman must understand that Tom’s adult life is strewn with the debris of failed relationships, unpaid bills, pissed-off employers and rancorous legal proceedings. How do you defend the indefensible?
Read, Lechtenberger and Marshall portray their client as a lamb sent to the slaughter so that men like Larry Stewart, Jerry Massengill and prosecutor Terry McEachern can evade their just deserts. Unfortunately, you can’t decry the sins of Coleman’s superiors without opening up a whole range of fact issues unrelated to the indictment in the present trial. If Coleman’s attorneys had their man’s best interests at heart this trial would have stayed in Morton, Texas; instead it has migrated to Tulia.
Tom Coleman was hired even though a background check uncovered enough red flags to outfit a battalion of Bolsheviks. The fact that he was the only applicant might have had something to do with it. Jerry Massengill contacted a Texas Ranger who said Tom was a "good person" and a "hard worker," who "needed constant supervision". Massengill once testified that he observed Coleman in the field on exactly two occasions.
"What else did Bullock tell you?" Rod Hobson asked.
"He said that Coleman stirs up . . . stuff," Massengill replied.
"Is that what the document in your hand says?" an incredulous Hobson asked. "Let me see that paper. Doesn’t it say, ‘stirs up shit’?"
"Yes," Massengill agreed, 'that’s what it says."
Mr. Bullock is right. Wherever Coleman has traveled you will find oodles of shit, well stirred, raw, steaming and malodorous. Coleman’s defenders keep forgetting that he is just a shit-stirring type of guy.
Massengill’s next phone call was to Cliff Harris, Coleman’s supervisor in Iraan (pronounced Ira-Ann) Texas. Harris cautioned that Coleman was "too gung-ho" and represented "a discipline problem." Worse still, Harris was concerned about "possible mental problems."
During evidentiary hearings in 2003, Massengill suggested that the bit about "mental problems" was followed by the words, "lost custody of children." Since any parent would be slightly addled after such a loss, Massengill hoped that Coleman’s psychological difficulties had been situational and therefore temporary. You never know, right?
Unfortunately, Mr. Harris wasn’t finished. Coleman also had a problem paying bills (sound familiar?) and had once kidnapped his children for several weeks after losing a custody battle.
"Who made the decision to hire him?" Hobson asked.
"Ultimately, the decision would have been Sheriff Stewart’s," the selfless Massengill replied.
Coleman’s hiring was the first embarrassing issue the Dream Team allowed into the courtroom when they called Stewart and Massengill to the witness stand. But the courtroom drama quickly fast forwarded to August 8, 1998, the day Sheriff Stewart had to "arrest" his own undercover man on theft charges filed in Cochran County.
The warrant Stewart received via teletype demanded that Coleman be arrested and conveyed to Cochran County. Instead, Stewart simply informed his deputy that charges had been filed against him, took his fingerprints, and had him released on a personal recognizance bond. Coleman called his attorney, a deal was worked out over the phone, and after a week of vacation Tulia’s undercover cop was back on the streets.
"Surely someone called Cochran County?" Rod Hobson asked.
No one had.
When Coleman said he had "cleared up" his legal problems and passed a polygraph to that effect he was returned to duty. None of Coleman’s superiors made the slightest attempt to ascertain what he had been charged with or how the case had been resolved.
Public officials in Tulia will tell you that their opposite numbers in Morton cooked up a bogus gas-stealing charge to force Tom Coleman to pay his bills. Folks in the now-defunct Panhandle Narcotics Task Force shared this belief. Why call the Sheriff’s office in Cochran County, they asked themselves, when we know they’re just a pack of liars. Cochran and Swisher Counties have been on a collision course for seven years now and the long-postponed train wreck may be unfolding in the Lubbock County courtroom.
Rod Hobson has always been stunned by this staunch refusal to ascertain the obvious. "Have you ever heard the term ‘deliberate indifference’?" Hobson asked Stewart. "It means not wanting to know what’s out there, burying your head in the sand, right?"
"Yes, sir," Stewart replied lamely.
Deliberate indifference has driven the Tulia fiasco from the beginning. Coleman’s handlers in Tulia and Amarillo have remained willfully ignorant of the gypsy cop’s dark side. Coleman’s attorneys seem to have fallen into the same trap. The big loser is Coleman himself.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The Gypsy Cop Blog
I'll admit I thought it was pretty cool that Doc Berman has his own personal shadow blog looking over his shoulder (older posts recently removed), but I just found out yesterday Grits has one, too. Regular readers will not be surprised to learn my fan's URL is gypsycop.blogspot.com. Nice!
I will say that whereas Prof. Berman's fanblog takes a friendly and collegial tone, mine sounds a bit more like a half-crazed stalker. It's full of references to my lack of masculinity and failure to get "laid" often enough, "my sister could beat you up," etc. The single post there responds to my Profile of a Gypsy Cop, Parts One and Two. I'd have figured out this existed sooner, but "Buck" appears to be a web newbie and didn't link to me.
For all the bile, there's some new information in the blog post that's worth following up:
For the record, Commander O'Burke didn't say anything to me, period, about Deputy Keith Majors. All the information in those two posts came from ACLU of Texas open records requests, and the content reflected what was found in those government documents. As for my comments regarding Deputy Majors' love life, the only such reference was to an incident where Majors got in a fight with his girlfriend while in uniform at a public restaurant, his service revolver was discharged, and Deputy Majors, allegedly, improperly left the scene. I specifically tried not to include personal detail about his love life (e.g., his girlfriend's name) that was not relevant to the allegations of misconduct.
There's a "Buck" mentioned in the same documents that criticized Majors, but since he chose to remain an anonymous blogger, I won't out him. Given the timing of his only post, I now think it was probably the same officer who left these comments a couple of days later (in a more polite tone since he was responding to a Judge's comments, not mine).
I'm not too worried about a fellow who calls me a coward but is afraid to use his own name. I'll probably make sure I drive the speed limit through the small towns, though, next time I take Hwy 183 South.
I will say that whereas Prof. Berman's fanblog takes a friendly and collegial tone, mine sounds a bit more like a half-crazed stalker. It's full of references to my lack of masculinity and failure to get "laid" often enough, "my sister could beat you up," etc. The single post there responds to my Profile of a Gypsy Cop, Parts One and Two. I'd have figured out this existed sooner, but "Buck" appears to be a web newbie and didn't link to me.
For all the bile, there's some new information in the blog post that's worth following up:
did [DPS Deputy Narcotics Commander] O'Burke say anything about one of his commanders, who by the way, IS IN CHARGE OF A TASK FORCE RUN BY DPS, getting a ticket in Floresville (after being stopped 2-3 previous times by a THP), he was ticketed for going 95 miles per hour? Or about the fight he started a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DINNER PARTY where he was INTOXICATED BEYOND BELIEF?You can bet I'll be checking out that story.
For the record, Commander O'Burke didn't say anything to me, period, about Deputy Keith Majors. All the information in those two posts came from ACLU of Texas open records requests, and the content reflected what was found in those government documents. As for my comments regarding Deputy Majors' love life, the only such reference was to an incident where Majors got in a fight with his girlfriend while in uniform at a public restaurant, his service revolver was discharged, and Deputy Majors, allegedly, improperly left the scene. I specifically tried not to include personal detail about his love life (e.g., his girlfriend's name) that was not relevant to the allegations of misconduct.
There's a "Buck" mentioned in the same documents that criticized Majors, but since he chose to remain an anonymous blogger, I won't out him. Given the timing of his only post, I now think it was probably the same officer who left these comments a couple of days later (in a more polite tone since he was responding to a Judge's comments, not mine).
I'm not too worried about a fellow who calls me a coward but is afraid to use his own name. I'll probably make sure I drive the speed limit through the small towns, though, next time I take Hwy 183 South.
Cops As Art Critics
Tres Chicas has the story of Texas cops masquerading as art critics.
(Hint: they didn't like this piece!)
(Hint: they didn't like this piece!)
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
A two-bit crime in a half-bit town
This is the fourth installment of Rev. Alan Bean's series guest blogging for Grits from the Tom Coleman perjury trial. For more, see the Amarilo paper's story here, AP's coverage here, UPI's here, Knight Ridder's here.
The last time Joe Moore saw Marvin Marshall the "hanging judge" was dying of cancer, or so it seemed at the time. But Marshall didn’t die. Like many judges who find themselves in poor health or facing retirement, Marshall got himself appointed as a visiting judge. David Gleason, the judge in Coleman’s perjury trial, is a visiting judge as is Ron Chapman, the Dallas judge who presided over Tulia evidentiary hearings in the spring of 2003.
Marvin Marshall recently resigned from the visiting judge program to join Tom Coleman’s crack legal team. But why? Did some well healed Tom Coleman advocate make attorneys like Marvin Marshall, John Read and Kirk Lechtenberger an offer they couldn’t refuse? Or do these men believe that a grave injustice is being inflicted on their client? Tom Coleman isn’t picking up the tab. As John Read bragged to the media shortly after taking on this case, "Tom Coleman couldn’t afford me in two life times."
I’m glad Tom Coleman has first class legal assistance. I wish John Read or Rod Hobson could have represented Joe Moore in December of 1999. Joe’s trial would certainly have lasted longer than a single day. Joe might even have been acquitted. He certainly wouldn’t have received a ninety-year sentence.
Instead, Joe was defended by Kregg, Hukill, a court appointed attorney from a town even smaller than Tulia. Hukill advised Joe to accept the twenty-five year plea bargain Terry McEachern had so graciously offered.
"I’d be dead by then," Joe replied, "I ain’t takin’ time for something I didn’t do."
"But Joe," the sympathetic attorney implored, "a jury could give you ninety years."
"Then you tell ‘em to crank it up!" the big hog farmer spat back. Relaying this story a few weeks ago Joe shook his head slowly and said, "Man, did they crank it up!"
Tom Coleman stands accused of committing a two-bit crime in a half-bit town. Cochran County Attorney J. C. Adams drew a little blackboard diagram for us on this afternoon. Mr. Adams office is located on the south side of Washington Street in tiny Morton, Texas. I had no trouble picturing the scene because I tried to talk to Adams over a year ago. "I’m through with this Coleman thing," he told me. "Do you realize how many of my kid’s ball games I’ve missed driving up to Tulia, only to be told that my testimony wasn’t needed after all? I don’t ever want to hear Coleman’s name again."
But there he was on the afternoon of January 11, 2005 (my fifty-second birthday, incidentally) sketching out the fatal scene on a chalkboard. Eight years have elapsed since the deal went down in Morton, Texas and this was J.C. Adams’ first chance to relate the chilling details in open court.
As Adams motored west on Washington street past the Wallace Oil Outlet he spied an ordinary man clad in "standard country and western wear" pulling a gas pump out of a "primer grey" truck. "Without a shadow of a doubt it was Tom Coleman," no more than twelve paces away. That pump, Adams told us, was for county vehicles only.
Two weeks later, Chief Deputy Raymond Weber told Adams that on two occasions Deputy Coleman had purchased far more fuel than his county vehicle could hold.
That’s what you call a two-bit crime. And if Tom Coleman was a patient man nothing would have come of it. But after leaving Morton, Texas in the middle of a shift the gypsy cop found himself in need of a job. When prospective employers called the Cochran County Sheriff’s office in search of a character reference they were informed that Coleman had fueled his personal vehicle with county gas. No big deal, a two-bit crime to be sure, but enough to send Tom’s resume to the trash heap.
An indignant Tom Coleman called up J.C. Adams and threatened Cochran County with a lawsuit if they didn’t stop telling lies about him. With the statute of limitations winding down on Coleman’s two-bit crime an angry Adams decided to press charges. Nobody likes an ultimatum.
"So how much did [Coleman] owe," attorney Rod Hobson asked J.C. Adams, "besides the gas that he stole?"
The ugly answer was that Coleman owed almost $7,000 to fifteen different merchants. "How many merchants you got over in Morton?" Hobson asked.
"Not many more than that," Adams replied in his laconic West Texas drawl.
This afternoon Judge Ron Chapman briefly took the stand to testify that Tom Coleman lied under oath in an official proceeding. More importantly, Chapman said, these lies were material in destroying Tom Coleman’s credibility.
Having established that much, the prosecution rested its case.
The Tulia drug case has garnered international publicity; so why was so much attention being paid to penny-ante crimes and misdemeanors committed almost ten years ago in a town that makes Tulia look like a booming metropolis?
Stealing gas pales in comparison with faking drug deals. But lawyers work with what they’ve got. The statute of limitations has run on Coleman’s drug sting testimony; but the lies he told at the Tulia evidentiary hearings are still fair game.
And, as Rod Hobson is sure to remind the jury in his closing statements, a lie is a lie and a liar is a liar. The Tulia drug sting unraveled because Tom Coleman was exposed as a lying son-of-a-bitch. That impression will be reinforced, albeit in unspectacular fashion, by this week’s perjury trial.
Tom Coleman isn’t so much evil as he is pathetic. But maybe that’s the point: you don’t hire tragically compromised people to make uncorroborated drug cases. In fact, we shouldn’t be sending folks away for decades on the uncorroborated word of fallible human being. Tom Coleman is just a loose cog in a broken machine.
Joe Moore takes no pleasure in seeing his nemesis brought low. "It’s nice to be on the other side this time," he admitted today as he paused between bites of chicken fried steak. "But what good’s it gonna do to lock up old Tom Coleman when they ain’t laid a finger on Terry McEachern, Larry Stewart and all them that put that rascal on the street?"
Perhaps that’s why Marvin Marshall signed on to Coleman’s defense team: he likes the system the way it is.
This really isn’t about Coleman anymore. It’s about Texas, it’s about the war on drugs, and it’s about restoring sanity to a grotesque criminal justice system.
Will Tom Coleman become the rolling snowball that sparks an avalanche? Please Jesus, let it be so.
Alan Bean
Tulia, Texas
The last time Joe Moore saw Marvin Marshall the "hanging judge" was dying of cancer, or so it seemed at the time. But Marshall didn’t die. Like many judges who find themselves in poor health or facing retirement, Marshall got himself appointed as a visiting judge. David Gleason, the judge in Coleman’s perjury trial, is a visiting judge as is Ron Chapman, the Dallas judge who presided over Tulia evidentiary hearings in the spring of 2003.
Marvin Marshall recently resigned from the visiting judge program to join Tom Coleman’s crack legal team. But why? Did some well healed Tom Coleman advocate make attorneys like Marvin Marshall, John Read and Kirk Lechtenberger an offer they couldn’t refuse? Or do these men believe that a grave injustice is being inflicted on their client? Tom Coleman isn’t picking up the tab. As John Read bragged to the media shortly after taking on this case, "Tom Coleman couldn’t afford me in two life times."
I’m glad Tom Coleman has first class legal assistance. I wish John Read or Rod Hobson could have represented Joe Moore in December of 1999. Joe’s trial would certainly have lasted longer than a single day. Joe might even have been acquitted. He certainly wouldn’t have received a ninety-year sentence.
Instead, Joe was defended by Kregg, Hukill, a court appointed attorney from a town even smaller than Tulia. Hukill advised Joe to accept the twenty-five year plea bargain Terry McEachern had so graciously offered.
"I’d be dead by then," Joe replied, "I ain’t takin’ time for something I didn’t do."
"But Joe," the sympathetic attorney implored, "a jury could give you ninety years."
"Then you tell ‘em to crank it up!" the big hog farmer spat back. Relaying this story a few weeks ago Joe shook his head slowly and said, "Man, did they crank it up!"
Tom Coleman stands accused of committing a two-bit crime in a half-bit town. Cochran County Attorney J. C. Adams drew a little blackboard diagram for us on this afternoon. Mr. Adams office is located on the south side of Washington Street in tiny Morton, Texas. I had no trouble picturing the scene because I tried to talk to Adams over a year ago. "I’m through with this Coleman thing," he told me. "Do you realize how many of my kid’s ball games I’ve missed driving up to Tulia, only to be told that my testimony wasn’t needed after all? I don’t ever want to hear Coleman’s name again."
But there he was on the afternoon of January 11, 2005 (my fifty-second birthday, incidentally) sketching out the fatal scene on a chalkboard. Eight years have elapsed since the deal went down in Morton, Texas and this was J.C. Adams’ first chance to relate the chilling details in open court.
As Adams motored west on Washington street past the Wallace Oil Outlet he spied an ordinary man clad in "standard country and western wear" pulling a gas pump out of a "primer grey" truck. "Without a shadow of a doubt it was Tom Coleman," no more than twelve paces away. That pump, Adams told us, was for county vehicles only.
Two weeks later, Chief Deputy Raymond Weber told Adams that on two occasions Deputy Coleman had purchased far more fuel than his county vehicle could hold.
That’s what you call a two-bit crime. And if Tom Coleman was a patient man nothing would have come of it. But after leaving Morton, Texas in the middle of a shift the gypsy cop found himself in need of a job. When prospective employers called the Cochran County Sheriff’s office in search of a character reference they were informed that Coleman had fueled his personal vehicle with county gas. No big deal, a two-bit crime to be sure, but enough to send Tom’s resume to the trash heap.
An indignant Tom Coleman called up J.C. Adams and threatened Cochran County with a lawsuit if they didn’t stop telling lies about him. With the statute of limitations winding down on Coleman’s two-bit crime an angry Adams decided to press charges. Nobody likes an ultimatum.
"So how much did [Coleman] owe," attorney Rod Hobson asked J.C. Adams, "besides the gas that he stole?"
The ugly answer was that Coleman owed almost $7,000 to fifteen different merchants. "How many merchants you got over in Morton?" Hobson asked.
"Not many more than that," Adams replied in his laconic West Texas drawl.
This afternoon Judge Ron Chapman briefly took the stand to testify that Tom Coleman lied under oath in an official proceeding. More importantly, Chapman said, these lies were material in destroying Tom Coleman’s credibility.
Having established that much, the prosecution rested its case.
The Tulia drug case has garnered international publicity; so why was so much attention being paid to penny-ante crimes and misdemeanors committed almost ten years ago in a town that makes Tulia look like a booming metropolis?
Stealing gas pales in comparison with faking drug deals. But lawyers work with what they’ve got. The statute of limitations has run on Coleman’s drug sting testimony; but the lies he told at the Tulia evidentiary hearings are still fair game.
And, as Rod Hobson is sure to remind the jury in his closing statements, a lie is a lie and a liar is a liar. The Tulia drug sting unraveled because Tom Coleman was exposed as a lying son-of-a-bitch. That impression will be reinforced, albeit in unspectacular fashion, by this week’s perjury trial.
Tom Coleman isn’t so much evil as he is pathetic. But maybe that’s the point: you don’t hire tragically compromised people to make uncorroborated drug cases. In fact, we shouldn’t be sending folks away for decades on the uncorroborated word of fallible human being. Tom Coleman is just a loose cog in a broken machine.
Joe Moore takes no pleasure in seeing his nemesis brought low. "It’s nice to be on the other side this time," he admitted today as he paused between bites of chicken fried steak. "But what good’s it gonna do to lock up old Tom Coleman when they ain’t laid a finger on Terry McEachern, Larry Stewart and all them that put that rascal on the street?"
Perhaps that’s why Marvin Marshall signed on to Coleman’s defense team: he likes the system the way it is.
This really isn’t about Coleman anymore. It’s about Texas, it’s about the war on drugs, and it’s about restoring sanity to a grotesque criminal justice system.
Will Tom Coleman become the rolling snowball that sparks an avalanche? Please Jesus, let it be so.
Alan Bean
Tulia, Texas
The Coleman Perjury Trial So Far
Some preliminary observations and questions on the Tom Coleman perjury trial, before our guest blogger Rev. Alan Bean's next piece is posted in the morning.
The first thing clear from Alan's missives is that, like Coleman himself, his attorneys will apparently stop at nothing to win the case. On Friday, John Neal told reporters at a staged media event that the judge missed a scheduled hearing. The judge labeled the comment "contumacious," which Alan helpfully explained means that Neal's actions showed contempt or disrespect for the court.
Second, Coleman's main criminal defense lawyer is a real piece of work -- Alan quotes one wag who said it was like Gordon Liddy and Jonnie Cochran had a baby and named it John Neal. But the subtext behind Alan's piece today isn't so funny: Coleman's lawyers successfully convinced quite a few jurors during voir dire, (where lawyers get to ask questions of potential jurors), including some who might have been sympathetic to the Tulia victims, to excuse themselves without Coleman's team having to waste any juror strikes. That's a sign of a smart lawyer.
Finally, I have one question that maybe Alan can answer. Tom Coleman floats from low-paying job to low-paying job, but he has three attorneys of the type that don't come cheap: John Neal, Kirk Lechtenberger, and a former district judge from Plainview, Marvin Marshall.
I wonder who is paying their bills?
Thanks to Alan for guest blogging the trial. You're doing a great job.
UPDATE: Charles Kuffner wants Rev. Bean to keep blogging after the trial. Personally, I have mixed emotions. I agree he'd be a natural, but fear if he took up blogging we'd never see this book he's been working on for some time now. It's a dilemma.
The first thing clear from Alan's missives is that, like Coleman himself, his attorneys will apparently stop at nothing to win the case. On Friday, John Neal told reporters at a staged media event that the judge missed a scheduled hearing. The judge labeled the comment "contumacious," which Alan helpfully explained means that Neal's actions showed contempt or disrespect for the court.
Second, Coleman's main criminal defense lawyer is a real piece of work -- Alan quotes one wag who said it was like Gordon Liddy and Jonnie Cochran had a baby and named it John Neal. But the subtext behind Alan's piece today isn't so funny: Coleman's lawyers successfully convinced quite a few jurors during voir dire, (where lawyers get to ask questions of potential jurors), including some who might have been sympathetic to the Tulia victims, to excuse themselves without Coleman's team having to waste any juror strikes. That's a sign of a smart lawyer.
Finally, I have one question that maybe Alan can answer. Tom Coleman floats from low-paying job to low-paying job, but he has three attorneys of the type that don't come cheap: John Neal, Kirk Lechtenberger, and a former district judge from Plainview, Marvin Marshall.
I wonder who is paying their bills?
Thanks to Alan for guest blogging the trial. You're doing a great job.
UPDATE: Charles Kuffner wants Rev. Bean to keep blogging after the trial. Personally, I have mixed emotions. I agree he'd be a natural, but fear if he took up blogging we'd never see this book he's been working on for some time now. It's a dilemma.
Innocence
David Elliot is right that Anthony Graves' case seems to speak to that elusive notion, "actual innocence." Read the story by Harvey Rice at the Houston Chronicle and see for yourself.
BTW, I've given them a hard time recently, but the Houston Chronicle has been doing a great job covering these issues surrounding possible innocence cases, and their recent hiring of ace reporter Tim Fleck indicates the paper is serious about providing quality coverage. It's showing in their criminal justice reporting.
BTW, I've given them a hard time recently, but the Houston Chronicle has been doing a great job covering these issues surrounding possible innocence cases, and their recent hiring of ace reporter Tim Fleck indicates the paper is serious about providing quality coverage. It's showing in their criminal justice reporting.
Harris County Residents Take Action: End Task Force Before Another Tulia
As Tom Coleman's perjury trial continues this morning, a few Texans have an opportunity to directly help get rid of our corrupt drug task force system. ACLU is asking Harris County residents to contact their elected officials, urging them to spend federal Byrne grant funding on drug treatment and crime lab improvements instead of the county drug task force.
ACLU's action alert, reproduced below, urges the Sheriff and County Judge to not re-authorize the local drug task force, and to spend Byrne money instead on more productive approaches. Please send the alert to any and all Harris County friends lists (through January 21). Please do not send it to statewide, national, or non-Harris-County lists.
ACLU hopes public awareness from the Coleman perjury trial will help push Harris County decisionmakers over the top on this subject, since they already need Byrne grant money for other stuff like crime labs and drug courts.
The Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recommended getting rid of drug task forces in December, so if Harris County doesn't act now, the Legislature may do it for them. For more detail see this Grits post on the topic, and ACLU's testimony to the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee on using Byrne funds to fix the crime lab problem.
Here's the text of ACLU's email alert.
Urge Harris County Officials to Better Use Federal Criminal Justice Grant Money
Harris County gets $3.5 million in federal "Byrne grant" funds each year and uses it to finance the dysfunctional Harris County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force, which is run out of the scandal-ridden Baytown Police Department. This money could and should be used for other law enforcement purposes: drug courts, drug treatment programs, probation services, or even to finance improvements in Houston’s poorly run crime labs.
Just this summer the task force conducted a full-blown raid on a Harris County home based on aerial observation of "marijuana" that turned out to be hibiscus. The Baytown Police Department also has a history of brutality and accountability problems.
Take Action! Harris County residents (only) should urge the Sheriff and the County Judge to pull out of the drug task force, and urge them to use Byrne grant money instead for drug courts and forensic science improvements.
If you live in Harris County, click here for more information and to take action.
ACLU's action alert, reproduced below, urges the Sheriff and County Judge to not re-authorize the local drug task force, and to spend Byrne money instead on more productive approaches. Please send the alert to any and all Harris County friends lists (through January 21). Please do not send it to statewide, national, or non-Harris-County lists.
ACLU hopes public awareness from the Coleman perjury trial will help push Harris County decisionmakers over the top on this subject, since they already need Byrne grant money for other stuff like crime labs and drug courts.
The Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee recommended getting rid of drug task forces in December, so if Harris County doesn't act now, the Legislature may do it for them. For more detail see this Grits post on the topic, and ACLU's testimony to the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee on using Byrne funds to fix the crime lab problem.
Here's the text of ACLU's email alert.
Urge Harris County Officials to Better Use Federal Criminal Justice Grant Money
Harris County gets $3.5 million in federal "Byrne grant" funds each year and uses it to finance the dysfunctional Harris County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force, which is run out of the scandal-ridden Baytown Police Department. This money could and should be used for other law enforcement purposes: drug courts, drug treatment programs, probation services, or even to finance improvements in Houston’s poorly run crime labs.
Just this summer the task force conducted a full-blown raid on a Harris County home based on aerial observation of "marijuana" that turned out to be hibiscus. The Baytown Police Department also has a history of brutality and accountability problems.
Take Action! Harris County residents (only) should urge the Sheriff and the County Judge to pull out of the drug task force, and urge them to use Byrne grant money instead for drug courts and forensic science improvements.
If you live in Harris County, click here for more information and to take action.
John Read's Boot Camp
This is the third installment of Rev. Alan Bean's special Grits series from Tom Coleman's perjury trial. Also, see today's story from the Amarillo paper, both AP and Reuters had brief coverage, and a Lubbock TV station did a piece on falsely convicted Tulians who came down for the trial.
Although Coleman's lies had sent Joe Moore away for ninety years, the big hog farmer didn't think much was likely to happen on the first day of Tom's perjury trial. In a sense he was right. The morning was squandered wrangling over frivolous motions; the afternoon was consumed in jury selection.
But for a Tulia junkie like me, yesterday was full-to-busting with fascinating detail. Once in the courtroom I sat down next to Dwight McDonald, the attorney who defended Kareem Abdul Jabbar White back in September of 2000. "That was the worst day of my adult life," Dwight told me, "I wouldn't try a case in Swisher County for any kind of money." McDonald had been so sure of impending victory he called up his lawyer pals while Kareem's jury deliberated. I remember wrapping the black attorney in a bear hug seconds after the guilty verdict was announced.
"If they can do that to Creamy," McDonald stuttered, "he could do it to me. He could do it to my daughters."
Indeed, he could.
Last Friday Read told the media that Judge Gleason had failed to show for a scheduled hearing and Gleason wasted no time announcing his displeasure.
"At no time did this court set a hearing for Friday," Gleason said in a controlled baritone. "If I schedule a hearing I'll be there for it. I was surprised and dismayed by some of the comments made on camera by Mr. Read on Friday. I consider these comments to be contumacious." "Contumacious," I later learn, refers to actions reflecting contempt for court authority.
Both sides in this fight have added new members. Jennifer Klar, one of the attorneys who came to Tulia for evidentiary hearings in March of 2003, is working with special prosecutors Rod Hobson and John Nation. Marvin Marshall, the Plainview Judge (known to black defendants as "the hanging judge," or simply "God,") appeared beside attorneys Read and Kirk Lechtenberger.
Marvin Marshall led things off by arguing, somewhat circuitously, that Rod Hobson and John Nation should have recused themselves in favor of Swisher County Attorney Mike Criswell and Wally Hatch (the Plainview City Attorney who succeeded Terry McEachern as District Attorney for Swisher and Hale counties). The fact that neither Criswell nor Hatch has ever tried a single felony case makes this suggestion attractive to Coleman's defense team, but the law was clearly on the state's side and the motion was denied.
Tom Coleman's grooming has undergone a makeover. When Tom Coleman appeared in eight Tulia drug trials his ponytail reached his shoulders and he wore a scruffy beard and blue jeans. Today, Coleman's closely cropped hair was parted neatly on the left and he appeared in an elegantly tailored dark suit, white shirt, red tie and American flag lapel pin. Except for the goofy look on his face he could have been mistaken for a presidential candidate waiting for the fundraiser to begin.
Most of the reporters were from Panhandle papers and television stations, but a number of major Texas dailies were on hand and Betsy Blaney of the AP and Jon Herskovitz of Reuters are writing stories for the national market (Blaney's initial offering appeared in today's UK Guardian). In addition, two documentary film crews are covering the Coleman trial. Hardly the media extravaganza we witnessed when thirteen defendants walked free in June of 2003, but a solid showing nonetheless.
When jury selection began Rod Hobson treated the 117 members of the jury pool to a slick PowerPoint civics lesson. The diminutive attorney's description of the legal process was so balanced and fair I wondered if he was simply trotting out the presentation he employs as a defense attorney.
"How many walked in the room, looked at the defendant and said, 'I wonder what he did?'" But that wouldn't do, Hobson told the jury panel, the defendant is to be considered innocent until the state can prove each element of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Pointing out the window to the county jail across the street, Hobson said the standard of proof is high because "freedom and reputation are at stake."
Hobson's voir dire presentation was polished, professional, even entertaining in places. Coleman's attorney would have to work to keep pace.
During the next break we learned that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. had been told they would not be able to attend the trial because they would be called as witnesses later in the week. My heart sank. Freddie Jr. spent almost four years tangled up in Coleman's lies and his family shared his agony. The Brookins family has been eagerly anticipating the Coleman trial since the now-disgraced narc was indicted in April of 2003.
Later in the day we were treated to a lengthy list of potential witnesses including public officials from Cochran County, every defense attorney involved in the Tulia drug trials, a laundry list of Tulia defendants, Sheriff Larry Stewart, former District Attorney Terry McEachern, Judges Ed Self and Jack Miller, Lubbock attorney Charlotte Bingham and, as if that weren't enough, Texas Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Read wants to know if jury panelists are familiar with any of these people. Obviously, most of these people are not going to testify. My fear is that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. will be forced to miss the trial without getting to testify.
My great fear is that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. will miss the trial and still not be called to testify.
"I'm a simple man with simple needs," John Read told the jury pool. Without hesitation he asked a juror with a Ph.D how he had answered when a questionnaire asked for his race. "Human," the man said. The jury panel tittered. "That's the kind of juror I like," Read roared. "I ask him, 'What race are you?' And he answers, 'Human'. You ask me, 'What kind of lawyer are you?' And I say. 'I'm good! The best!"
Unlike most defense attorneys, John Read is not satisfied with bland admonitions about civic duty. He tells the jury panel that most of them, perhaps all of them, are biased against his client and that they should have the guts to admit it.
"There are those sitting here today," he says, "that think in their heart of hearts that my client must have done something or the Governor wouldn't have pardoned those people."
"I saw a lot of coverage on what happened in Tulia," an African American panelist answers, "and, to be honest with you, being that so many of them were African American, it makes a difference to me; it changes how I feel."
A woman raises her hand. "I just went through a divorce, and I have a real problem with men that lie."
Mr. Read creates a revivalist courtroom atmosphere then calls folks to repentance. And damned if they don't repent! I have never seen anything faintly like it in Tulia.
"Do all witnesses tell the truth all the time?" he asks. "They should, they're supposed to, but we all know they don't."
Read tells a man who has done computer work for Charlotte Bingham that he will be biased by the simple fact that he likes her and thinks she is a good person. That would make it difficult, possibly impossible, for him to discredit her testimony. He doesn't suggest this might be true; he strongly implies it is true.
"There is no definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. We used to have one but they took it away from us."
"Is there anybody here who believes that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is too high a burden? If you think that standard is too high and intend to follow a lesser standard please raise your hand."
"There are those among you that feel that if a person has been indicted and arrested they must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be here."
"After 5,000 felony cases I've tried I know I can get you indicted for anything. I can get you indicted."
Read asks Coleman to stand and face the jury panel. He lectures them on the need to give his client the presumption of innocence. He dwells on the fact that many in this room think he must be guilty in their heart of hearts like a revival preacher looking to convert a room full of sinners.
He gets one woman to admit that she is having trouble believing that Coleman would be on trial if he didn't do anything. "I guess I could take each one of you one-on-one and eventually we'd get there," Read says. The not-so-subtle implication is that every one of these sorry bastards is presuming his client is guilty.
"There are some who believe the accused must prove his innocence before he can be acquitted," he continues. "If you feel that way it is your obligation as a citizen to tell me about it."
"There are those amongst you who would feel that if a person fails to testify in his own behalf you would hold it against them. If you are that person, raise you hand. Come on! I'm talking to you. Come on!"
Four people raise their hands.
A reporter leans over and whispers, "It's like Gordon Liddy and Johnnie Cochran had a baby and named him John Read."
"The defense has got to prove nada!" Read bellows contemptuously. "Mr. Coleman didn't volunteer to come in here because the thought it would be fun; he was dragged in here against his will. He doesn't have to do anything to prove his innocence. Why should he? Tell me that, why should he?"
The voir dire process is John Read's boot camp, a two-hour smack down conducted with humor and style. I have never seen anything even vaguely like it in Tulia, Texas.
Tuesday morning at nine o'clock sharp the real action starts.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Although Coleman's lies had sent Joe Moore away for ninety years, the big hog farmer didn't think much was likely to happen on the first day of Tom's perjury trial. In a sense he was right. The morning was squandered wrangling over frivolous motions; the afternoon was consumed in jury selection.
But for a Tulia junkie like me, yesterday was full-to-busting with fascinating detail. Once in the courtroom I sat down next to Dwight McDonald, the attorney who defended Kareem Abdul Jabbar White back in September of 2000. "That was the worst day of my adult life," Dwight told me, "I wouldn't try a case in Swisher County for any kind of money." McDonald had been so sure of impending victory he called up his lawyer pals while Kareem's jury deliberated. I remember wrapping the black attorney in a bear hug seconds after the guilty verdict was announced.
"If they can do that to Creamy," McDonald stuttered, "he could do it to me. He could do it to my daughters."
Indeed, he could.
Last Friday Read told the media that Judge Gleason had failed to show for a scheduled hearing and Gleason wasted no time announcing his displeasure.
"At no time did this court set a hearing for Friday," Gleason said in a controlled baritone. "If I schedule a hearing I'll be there for it. I was surprised and dismayed by some of the comments made on camera by Mr. Read on Friday. I consider these comments to be contumacious." "Contumacious," I later learn, refers to actions reflecting contempt for court authority.
Both sides in this fight have added new members. Jennifer Klar, one of the attorneys who came to Tulia for evidentiary hearings in March of 2003, is working with special prosecutors Rod Hobson and John Nation. Marvin Marshall, the Plainview Judge (known to black defendants as "the hanging judge," or simply "God,") appeared beside attorneys Read and Kirk Lechtenberger.
Marvin Marshall led things off by arguing, somewhat circuitously, that Rod Hobson and John Nation should have recused themselves in favor of Swisher County Attorney Mike Criswell and Wally Hatch (the Plainview City Attorney who succeeded Terry McEachern as District Attorney for Swisher and Hale counties). The fact that neither Criswell nor Hatch has ever tried a single felony case makes this suggestion attractive to Coleman's defense team, but the law was clearly on the state's side and the motion was denied.
Tom Coleman's grooming has undergone a makeover. When Tom Coleman appeared in eight Tulia drug trials his ponytail reached his shoulders and he wore a scruffy beard and blue jeans. Today, Coleman's closely cropped hair was parted neatly on the left and he appeared in an elegantly tailored dark suit, white shirt, red tie and American flag lapel pin. Except for the goofy look on his face he could have been mistaken for a presidential candidate waiting for the fundraiser to begin.
Most of the reporters were from Panhandle papers and television stations, but a number of major Texas dailies were on hand and Betsy Blaney of the AP and Jon Herskovitz of Reuters are writing stories for the national market (Blaney's initial offering appeared in today's UK Guardian). In addition, two documentary film crews are covering the Coleman trial. Hardly the media extravaganza we witnessed when thirteen defendants walked free in June of 2003, but a solid showing nonetheless.
When jury selection began Rod Hobson treated the 117 members of the jury pool to a slick PowerPoint civics lesson. The diminutive attorney's description of the legal process was so balanced and fair I wondered if he was simply trotting out the presentation he employs as a defense attorney.
"How many walked in the room, looked at the defendant and said, 'I wonder what he did?'" But that wouldn't do, Hobson told the jury panel, the defendant is to be considered innocent until the state can prove each element of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Pointing out the window to the county jail across the street, Hobson said the standard of proof is high because "freedom and reputation are at stake."
Hobson's voir dire presentation was polished, professional, even entertaining in places. Coleman's attorney would have to work to keep pace.
During the next break we learned that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. had been told they would not be able to attend the trial because they would be called as witnesses later in the week. My heart sank. Freddie Jr. spent almost four years tangled up in Coleman's lies and his family shared his agony. The Brookins family has been eagerly anticipating the Coleman trial since the now-disgraced narc was indicted in April of 2003.
Later in the day we were treated to a lengthy list of potential witnesses including public officials from Cochran County, every defense attorney involved in the Tulia drug trials, a laundry list of Tulia defendants, Sheriff Larry Stewart, former District Attorney Terry McEachern, Judges Ed Self and Jack Miller, Lubbock attorney Charlotte Bingham and, as if that weren't enough, Texas Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator John Cornyn. Read wants to know if jury panelists are familiar with any of these people. Obviously, most of these people are not going to testify. My fear is that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. will be forced to miss the trial without getting to testify.
My great fear is that Freddie Brookins Jr. and Sr. will miss the trial and still not be called to testify.
"I'm a simple man with simple needs," John Read told the jury pool. Without hesitation he asked a juror with a Ph.D how he had answered when a questionnaire asked for his race. "Human," the man said. The jury panel tittered. "That's the kind of juror I like," Read roared. "I ask him, 'What race are you?' And he answers, 'Human'. You ask me, 'What kind of lawyer are you?' And I say. 'I'm good! The best!"
Unlike most defense attorneys, John Read is not satisfied with bland admonitions about civic duty. He tells the jury panel that most of them, perhaps all of them, are biased against his client and that they should have the guts to admit it.
"There are those sitting here today," he says, "that think in their heart of hearts that my client must have done something or the Governor wouldn't have pardoned those people."
"I saw a lot of coverage on what happened in Tulia," an African American panelist answers, "and, to be honest with you, being that so many of them were African American, it makes a difference to me; it changes how I feel."
A woman raises her hand. "I just went through a divorce, and I have a real problem with men that lie."
Mr. Read creates a revivalist courtroom atmosphere then calls folks to repentance. And damned if they don't repent! I have never seen anything faintly like it in Tulia.
"Do all witnesses tell the truth all the time?" he asks. "They should, they're supposed to, but we all know they don't."
Read tells a man who has done computer work for Charlotte Bingham that he will be biased by the simple fact that he likes her and thinks she is a good person. That would make it difficult, possibly impossible, for him to discredit her testimony. He doesn't suggest this might be true; he strongly implies it is true.
"There is no definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. We used to have one but they took it away from us."
"Is there anybody here who believes that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is too high a burden? If you think that standard is too high and intend to follow a lesser standard please raise your hand."
"There are those among you that feel that if a person has been indicted and arrested they must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be here."
"After 5,000 felony cases I've tried I know I can get you indicted for anything. I can get you indicted."
Read asks Coleman to stand and face the jury panel. He lectures them on the need to give his client the presumption of innocence. He dwells on the fact that many in this room think he must be guilty in their heart of hearts like a revival preacher looking to convert a room full of sinners.
He gets one woman to admit that she is having trouble believing that Coleman would be on trial if he didn't do anything. "I guess I could take each one of you one-on-one and eventually we'd get there," Read says. The not-so-subtle implication is that every one of these sorry bastards is presuming his client is guilty.
"There are some who believe the accused must prove his innocence before he can be acquitted," he continues. "If you feel that way it is your obligation as a citizen to tell me about it."
"There are those amongst you who would feel that if a person fails to testify in his own behalf you would hold it against them. If you are that person, raise you hand. Come on! I'm talking to you. Come on!"
Four people raise their hands.
A reporter leans over and whispers, "It's like Gordon Liddy and Johnnie Cochran had a baby and named him John Read."
"The defense has got to prove nada!" Read bellows contemptuously. "Mr. Coleman didn't volunteer to come in here because the thought it would be fun; he was dragged in here against his will. He doesn't have to do anything to prove his innocence. Why should he? Tell me that, why should he?"
The voir dire process is John Read's boot camp, a two-hour smack down conducted with humor and style. I have never seen anything even vaguely like it in Tulia, Texas.
Tuesday morning at nine o'clock sharp the real action starts.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Monday, January 10, 2005
Teaching the Bill of Rights to children
Sometime I fear Grits' fare will become too negative, having so often adopted the role of bearer of bad news regarding Texas' criminal justice system. So this post pairs notice of a rather ugly incident with two more positive developments:
Seven girls and three boys, ages 11 and 12, were strip searched by their private charter school in LaMarque, TX, looking for a 10 dollar bill another student reported missing last week. The searches conducted were performed without the parents' permission. The money was not recovered, so the humiliation these kids went through was for naught. One parent called the police and pulled her kids out of the school, but police told the newspaper the searches weren't against the law. Via Last One Speaks and Talk Left.
Meanwhile, Pete Guither points to this Houston Chronicle op ed, "Lawyer's plea on pot penalty," in support of Rep. Dutton's bill.
After my perhaps rather alarmist post last night about dogs, it's worth mentioning that the Statesman has an interesting item on a program utilizing inmates to train "difficult" dogs from the local animal shelter to make them easier to place in a home. Sometimes the inmates have family members adopt them so they'll be waiting for them when they get out.
Seven girls and three boys, ages 11 and 12, were strip searched by their private charter school in LaMarque, TX, looking for a 10 dollar bill another student reported missing last week. The searches conducted were performed without the parents' permission. The money was not recovered, so the humiliation these kids went through was for naught. One parent called the police and pulled her kids out of the school, but police told the newspaper the searches weren't against the law. Via Last One Speaks and Talk Left.
Meanwhile, Pete Guither points to this Houston Chronicle op ed, "Lawyer's plea on pot penalty," in support of Rep. Dutton's bill.
After my perhaps rather alarmist post last night about dogs, it's worth mentioning that the Statesman has an interesting item on a program utilizing inmates to train "difficult" dogs from the local animal shelter to make them easier to place in a home. Sometimes the inmates have family members adopt them so they'll be waiting for them when they get out.
UT Austin Innocence Clinic
UT has a nice feature story on the brand-new Texas Center for Actual Innocence on its website. The center is designed to identify and spring innocent Texas convicts using law student labor, led by top-flight law profs. It's modeled on the original Innocence Project led by Barry Scheck at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University in New York City.
Last year the UT Capital Punishment clinic won two important cases at the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the state from executing mentally retarded inmates.
Via Steve Hall
Last year the UT Capital Punishment clinic won two important cases at the U.S. Supreme Court restricting the state from executing mentally retarded inmates.
Via Steve Hall
Perry, Cornyn, subpoenaed in Tom Coleman perjury trial
AP reports that special prosecutors in the Tom Coleman perjury trial have subpoenaed 61 witnesses, including Texas Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn!
This could get interesting ...
This could get interesting ...
Telling the old, old story
As Tom Coleman goes to trial today, I thought of listening to Rev. Nancy Hastings Sehested offering up this prayer on a warm summer night in Tulia 3-1/2 years ago at the "Never Again" rally. I can't wait for Alan's next report.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Medical Info from a Canine Sniff?
I just watched a 60 Minutes segment that showed some amazing British medical experiments where dogs could actually identify cancer in people's urine, or even smell cancer within the body by sniffing the epidermis.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court might still decide that a dog sniffing for marijuana is NOT a search. I guess ten years from now when dogs are trained to check for diseases, it won't be a search for a dog to gather my personal medical information, either?
CrimLaw has a useful three part series on canine searches, "Canine sniffs: The search that isn't," among its notable posts, here, here, and here. Ken Lammers says that (somewhat surprisingly to me, I'll say, since not everything I've said about them has been wholly complementary) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, in 1982 issued the ruling that sets the Fourth Amendment gold standard on the subject. Presently, though, it is in high jeopardy. In the second installment he writes:
UPDATE: Talk Left has more on sniffs and searches at traffic stops, pointing to this article from the Longview (TX) News Journal.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court might still decide that a dog sniffing for marijuana is NOT a search. I guess ten years from now when dogs are trained to check for diseases, it won't be a search for a dog to gather my personal medical information, either?
CrimLaw has a useful three part series on canine searches, "Canine sniffs: The search that isn't," among its notable posts, here, here, and here. Ken Lammers says that (somewhat surprisingly to me, I'll say, since not everything I've said about them has been wholly complementary) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, in 1982 issued the ruling that sets the Fourth Amendment gold standard on the subject. Presently, though, it is in high jeopardy. In the second installment he writes:
The 5th Circuit in particular has long standing, well reasoned precedents holding that the Fourth Amendment applies with its fullest vigor against any intrusion on the human body and a dog sniff is unconstitutional "when there is no individualized suspicion." Horton v. Gross Creek Independent School District, 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir 1982).God help us if they get it wrong; the case was argued in November (pdf), but no decision has been issued yet. For more on where this slippery slope might lead us see this Grits post.
Horton's reasoning foreshadowed the Supreme Court's finding in Kyllo v. United States. In Kyllo the Supreme court holds that there is an added expectation of privacy in a person's house and that "obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." The dissent points out that this "would . . . embrace potential mechanical substitutes for dogs trained to react when they sniff narcotics. But . . . a dog sniff discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and it must follow that sense-enhancing equipment that identifies nothing but illegal activity is not a search either. Nevertheless, the use of such a device would be unconstitutional under the Court’s rule." The unstated inference is that Kyllo puts all the case law which has developed from the Place dicta in danger - at least when there is a heightened expectation of privacy. Personally, I am of the opinion that a technological tool and a biological tool are indistinguishable, except perhaps on an emotional level.
The Federal Supreme Court has finally accepted a case which directly addresses the question of canine sniffs in Illinois v. Caballes.
UPDATE: Talk Left has more on sniffs and searches at traffic stops, pointing to this article from the Longview (TX) News Journal.
Lesson from Tulia: Treatment not incarceration
Grits guest blogger Rev. Alan Bean, a long-time activist with Tulia Friends of Justice, was quoted in this Fort Worth Star Telegram story today about Tom Coleman's perjury trial. Expanding on his comments, Alan describes the nature of Coleman's drug cases in Tulia, and the modus operandi sounds eerily similar to what happened recently to 72 black defendants in Palestine. This is part two of Alan's series blogging from the Tom Coleman perjury trial.
Talk to most police officers, district attorneys, probation officers and judges and you get a cynical assessment of America’s war on drugs. These people know they aren’t making the slightest dent in the drug trade. But when District Attorney Terry McEachern told Tulia jurors that stiff sentences were a giant step in the direction of a drug-free community he was taken seriously. Jurors decided that if they were going to send a message it should be the strongest message possible.
A big drug bust in a small town gets very personal. Most Tulia jurors recognized many of the sting defendants from the sports page of the Tulia Herald and the Kleenex box made regular rounds of the jury room in the course of eight trials. "What if the defendant was my kid, or yours?" jurors asked one other. Then they handed down the longest sentences the law allowed. It was dirty work, but somebody had to do it. Many jurors were sick for days when the trial was over.
Swisher County Judge Harold Keeter recently told Bill Hanna of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Tulia has "a substance abuse problem" just like every other community in Texas. He’s right, of course; but are long prison sentences the answer?
Friends of Justice President Thelma Johnson told Mr. Hanna that Tulia didn’t have forty-six drug dealers. Anyone who understands the economics of the drug trade would agree with Thelma’s assessment. But no one in Tulia was accused of being a drug dealer; they were accused of selling drugs to undercover agent Tom Coleman. "Here’s forty dollars," Coleman would say, "get me a twenty rock and keep twenty dollars for yourself." Drug warriors assume that only a genuine drug dealer would fall for a pitch like that. The simple fact is that people who liver in communities where drugs are plentiful and jobs are in short supply would have to think twice before turning down easy money. The Tulia drug sting, like every phase of America’s drug war, was driven by poverty and desperation.
Tom Coleman’s logged 132 separate buys on 46 people over an eighteen-month period and the dim-witted gypsy cop was soon lost in a blizzard of details. I don’t blame Freddie Brookins Jr. for wanting to see Mr. Coleman pay the price for his sins. I’d feel the same way if Coleman had faked a case on me. But Coleman isn’t the first cop to lie on the witness stand and he certainly won’t be the last. Tom is just another pawn in a cynical game, a symptom of a disease they call the drug war.
Some problems can’t be solved, they can only be managed. The first step to managing America’s drug problem is to quit investing in naves like Tom Coleman and to start investing in serious drug rehabilitation programs. My media mantra at the Tom Coleman trial will consist of three simple words: Treatment not incarceration.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
Talk to most police officers, district attorneys, probation officers and judges and you get a cynical assessment of America’s war on drugs. These people know they aren’t making the slightest dent in the drug trade. But when District Attorney Terry McEachern told Tulia jurors that stiff sentences were a giant step in the direction of a drug-free community he was taken seriously. Jurors decided that if they were going to send a message it should be the strongest message possible.
A big drug bust in a small town gets very personal. Most Tulia jurors recognized many of the sting defendants from the sports page of the Tulia Herald and the Kleenex box made regular rounds of the jury room in the course of eight trials. "What if the defendant was my kid, or yours?" jurors asked one other. Then they handed down the longest sentences the law allowed. It was dirty work, but somebody had to do it. Many jurors were sick for days when the trial was over.
Swisher County Judge Harold Keeter recently told Bill Hanna of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Tulia has "a substance abuse problem" just like every other community in Texas. He’s right, of course; but are long prison sentences the answer?
Friends of Justice President Thelma Johnson told Mr. Hanna that Tulia didn’t have forty-six drug dealers. Anyone who understands the economics of the drug trade would agree with Thelma’s assessment. But no one in Tulia was accused of being a drug dealer; they were accused of selling drugs to undercover agent Tom Coleman. "Here’s forty dollars," Coleman would say, "get me a twenty rock and keep twenty dollars for yourself." Drug warriors assume that only a genuine drug dealer would fall for a pitch like that. The simple fact is that people who liver in communities where drugs are plentiful and jobs are in short supply would have to think twice before turning down easy money. The Tulia drug sting, like every phase of America’s drug war, was driven by poverty and desperation.
Tom Coleman’s logged 132 separate buys on 46 people over an eighteen-month period and the dim-witted gypsy cop was soon lost in a blizzard of details. I don’t blame Freddie Brookins Jr. for wanting to see Mr. Coleman pay the price for his sins. I’d feel the same way if Coleman had faked a case on me. But Coleman isn’t the first cop to lie on the witness stand and he certainly won’t be the last. Tom is just another pawn in a cynical game, a symptom of a disease they call the drug war.
Some problems can’t be solved, they can only be managed. The first step to managing America’s drug problem is to quit investing in naves like Tom Coleman and to start investing in serious drug rehabilitation programs. My media mantra at the Tom Coleman trial will consist of three simple words: Treatment not incarceration.
Alan Bean,
Tulia, Texas
New Solutions: Raid hot-check and asset forfeiture funds to pay for drug treatment
Ann at Solutions for Texas has posted her own set of big picture solutions for Texas' overincarceraton crisis, focusing on "less expensive options that decrease crime." She's carved them up into bite-size chunks, but taken together, they're a must read for anyone interested in Texas criminal justice policy and sentencing reform. She advises the Legislature to:
Especially interesting is her take on ways to fund these improvements. Some money sources Grits readers are aware already of, like reducing low-level drug sentences or redirecting federal Byrne grant money. But she also proposes installing telephones in prison so prisoners can speak to their loved ones and the prison can generate revenue. And she's identified a new, deep-pocketed source that could finance a lot of new drug treatment programs and probation services: County drug asset forfeiture funds and "hot check" funds. Ann writes:1. Modernize criminal punishment ranges
2. Strengthen community supervision
3. Remove unnecessary barriers to a felon's success
4. Fund all of these improvements with "pay as you go" policies
Those sources combined could pony up many tens of millions of dollars -- it's one of the few new ideas that's been proposed as legislators scramble to finance drug courts, in-prison drug treament, and improvements to state forensic labs. Texas state Rep. Aaron Pena proposed directing 10% of asset forfeture money to drug treatment in a 2003 bill, but the idea wasn't seriously considered. Now, though, with our overincarceration crisis threatening to break the bank, the 79th Texas Legislature might be willing to look more closely at such options.District attorney discretionary asset forfeiture and hot check funds should be appropriated to punishment options that reduce recidivism most effectively.
District attorneys in Texas have funds stashed away all over the state without clear direction as to how to spend the money. There is no need for this type of unaccountable broad discretion over funding sources by a government entity. These funds should be immediately shifted to improving the system.
Singing the red state blues
Mynor Rodriguez appears to be feeling a little cynical these days, but he's got a new blog -- The Red State: Living Liberal and Progressive in a Red State -- to air his grievances. Recent posts clue us in on the latest crop of bad bills at the Texas Legislature. Another early piece looks at the insiders and special interests behind HB 2292, a massive re-organization of the state health and human services system which passed in the 78th Texas legislative session in 2003. That bill collapsed Texas' health and human service agencies into one huge mega-bureaucracy, while reducing the number of personnel dedicated to oversight and fraud enforcement. The backstory, though, Mynor tells us, citing Houston Chronicle reports, involved funneling patronage money and key appointments to important political fundraisers. Mynor is a former staffer for the House Human Services committee, so he brings a lot of background to the topics he's covering. Check it out, and look for him regularly linked under "Friends" on the blogroll.
Brits battle misuse of government surveillance cameras for voyeurism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
