Tulia In-Depth Look, Part 3 of 5

FATE OF CASES HUNG ON COLEMAN

The adage about not putting all your eggs in one basket seems to have
special significance when considering the reliability of Tom Coleman, whose
18-month undercover investigation in Tulia resulted in the 1999 indictments
of 46 people, 39 of whom are black.

The lack of surveillance in the operation left the fate of all the cases
hanging on the word of Coleman and his reliability. The state called other
witnesses at trial, usually to speak to the handling and testing of the
evidence, but convictions always came down to Coleman's word linking the
defendant with a bag of cocaine.

"And that's the problem with the state's cases," said Amarillo attorney
Jeff Blackburn, who represents several defendants on appeal and in civil
suits. "Because everything comes down to the word of this one guy, it's an
all-or-nothing affair. You can't lose one case and say he was wrong without
losing all of them."

The 42-year-old Coleman's role as the state's only significant witness left
defense attorneys with the clear task of impugning his testimony in order
to free their clients. Coleman's past provided plenty of fodder for raising
questions about his reliability.

Coleman, who refused repeated requests for an interview, was not working in
law enforcement when he applied for the Tulia undercover position. He
admitted at trial he had little narcotics experience before he began
training for the operation.

His father, Joe Coleman, was a well-known Texas Ranger in Pecos County, but
Coleman doesn't seem to have taken after his father's clean-cut appearance,
sporting a pony tail, a wispy goatee and generally affecting an appearance
of seediness. Coleman said in a prior interview that the look is a
necessity for an undercover agent.

Coleman's work records show he started working in law enforcement in 1986,
spending nearly three years as a jailer in Reeves County, followed by a
four-year stint as a deputy in Pecos County.

He spent less than a year in 1994 working as a jailer in Denton County,
then moved on to Cochran County after six months off, where he spent less
than a year working as a deputy and a jailer.

Coleman was out of law enforcement for nearly two years, working in a
Midland welding shop, before he was hired by Swisher County Sheriff Larry
Stewart.

Coleman's spotty work record in law enforcement is an important tool for
defense attorneys because it provides a motivation for him to manufacture
cases against defendants, according to Blackburn.

"I believe he lied in these cases to further a clearly failing (law
enforcement) career," Blackburn said. "This guy went from zero to hero in
Swisher County. He went from unemployable to officer of the year based on
the numbers he generated in Tulia. That's your motivation for lying."

Coleman's history raises questions about more than just his work record,
however, and it would take the efforts of Amarillo attorney Van Williamson
to root out those questions.

Several nebulous statements about an internal investigation in Coleman's
background were made in the early trials, but details were scarce.

Trial transcripts show Coleman's work records were sealed by the court
before the trials based on a rule of evidence preventing a witness from
being impugned by charges not resulting in a conviction.

Williamson set out to investigate those allegations, traveling to Pecos and
Cochran counties several times to talk to Coleman's former co-workers.
Williamson said what he found was striking.

"I've never seen so many people in law enforcement talk bad about another
law enforcement officer," Williamson said. "I never heard a single good
thing about Tom Coleman. To a person, they said you can't believe what he
says."

Pecos County Sheriff Cliff Harris refused to be interviewed, and Cochran
County Sheriff Wallace Stalcup said he did not work with Coleman and was
unable to set up an interview with a deputy who had.

Williamson's allegations are supported by a letter from former Cochran
County Sheriff Ken Burke, however. Burke wrote in a June 14, 1996, letter
to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
that Coleman walked out in the middle of a shift without even returning his
patrol car and left a number of debts behind when he left town.

"It is in my opinion that an officer should uphold the law," Burke wrote.
"Mr. Coleman should not be in Law Enforcement, if he is going to do people
the way he did in this town."

Trial testimony presented a more complex view, however. Coleman's good
character was backed up by three Texas Rangers at Kareem Abdul Jabbar
White's trial, but it was further impugned by former co-workers from Pecos
County, who testified Coleman was not reliable.

Coleman's character has been supported by local law enforcement officers,
as well.

"I never had any problem with Tom," said Joe Bill Dempsey with the Tulia
Police Department.

"I'm not going to say he acted like you or me. He had some quirks. But
that's what made him a good undercover agent. If he acted like you and me,
he never would have been able to do his job."

While downstate, Williamson made several other discoveries and firmed up
the information on the internal investigation hinted at by Coleman.

The investigation resulted in charges against Coleman for abuse of official
misconduct and theft, both class B misdemeanors, handed down in Cochran
County on May 6, 1998.

The charges were dropped after Coleman, who denied any wrongdoing and said
the allegations stemmed from a vindictive sheriff, made restitution.

Coleman testified in Cash Love's motion for a new trial hearing that he had
either filed or was in the process of filing a lawsuit against Cochran
County alleging he was forced to pay too much restitution. A check of the
courts revealed no such lawsuit, and Coleman's San Angelo attorney, Jon
Mark Hogg, said he was unaware of any lawsuit.

The majority of restitution stems from $7,000 worth of bills run up by
Coleman in Cochran County. According to affidavits filed in the case,
Coleman ran up tabs with gas companies, grocery stores and auto repair
shops but did not pay the bills. Coleman also secured two personal loans
from a local bank but didn't make payments.

Coleman testified in court that the debts were run up by his wife and were
the result of a bad divorce. Lt. Mike Amos, commander of the Panhandle
Narcotics Trafficking Task Force in Amarillo, testified that his office
investigated the incident and administered a polygraph to Coleman, finding
nothing preventing him from returning to work.

Blackburn takes a much different view of the matter, however.

He said Coleman's work history and debts establish a clear legal standard
for impugning a witness' credibility.

"You take those two things and you've got motive and you've got a
propensity to lie," Blackburn said. "He was obviously motivated to make a
big splash because of his career and money troubles, and he showed his
propensity to use his position to his advantage by running up bills on his
status as a law enforcement officer and lying about whether he would pay them."

Little of the evidence in Coleman's background was admitted at trial, but
Blackburn said he is confident the evidence will make it in on appeal.

Another issue likely to be raised on appeal is Coleman's conflicting
testimony during the trials.

Coleman testified in Billy Wafer's Feb. 11, 2000 motion to revoke hearing
that he had "never been arrested or charged for nothing except a traffic
ticket way back when I was a kid." He later testified that he was aware
prior to the hearing that he had been charged in Cochran County.

Coleman also gave conflicting testimony about when he became aware of the
charges. At Love's April 12, 2000, motion for a new trial, Coleman
testified he became aware of the charges in May 1998.

But at Mandis Barrow's May 10, 2000, probation revocation hearing, Coleman
testified he was not aware of the charges until August, when he was
informed by Stewart that he had been charged.

Even when confronted with his previous testimony and a waiver of
arraignment that he signed May 30, 1998, which detailed the charges,
Coleman still said he was not aware of the charge until three months later.

Defense attorneys claim Coleman intentionally lied on the stand, not just
about his past, but about his actions as an undercover agent.

But Coleman has said under oath any inconsistencies were just a case of
confusion on his part, brought about by attorneys who manipulated his words.

District Attorney Terry McEachern said he still believes in Coleman's
testimony and is confident it will hold up. McEachern said any
inconsistencies in Coleman's testimony are just a natural extension of the
amount of time between the buys and the trials, and he said Coleman's
background does not trouble him at all.

"I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that he (Coleman) is
perfect," McEachern said. "I think if you put anybody's past under the
microscope, you could come up with something. But does that mean he's
lying? Of course not."