INJUSTICE ON TECHNICALITY

Most of us probably agree that Texans who spend years in prison for
crimes they didn't commit should be compensated.

And most of us probably agree that includes the 35 residents of
Tulia, a small Panhandle town, who did time based solely on the
testimony of a rogue cop who has since been convicted of lying under
oath during an investigation of his undercover operation.

The story of Tulia played the national news as a tawdry example of
Texas injustice. But the state responded well to the scandal.

A judge had ruled and the local district attorney agreed that the
undercover narcotics investigation was irreparably tainted by the
officer's dishonesty. Some of the convicted, it turned out, weren't
even in town on the days he said they sold him drugs.

The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered an investigation into the case,
and the Legislature passed a law freeing those still in prison, some
for as long as four years.

Ten will have to wait Gov. Rick Perry pardoned the 35 in 2003 upon the
unanimous recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Parole.

Ten have already begun receiving checks under a Texas law that
provides $25,000 for each year of false imprisonment.

Some will receive as much as $100,000, half now and half if they go a
year without being convicted of another crime.

It is not all that much compensation, considering not only were these
people imprisoned, but many had a difficult time finding work after
serving their time.

But 10 who have applied will have to wait.

The reason: These 10 were already on probation or parole when
undercover officer Tom Coleman made his cases against them. When they
were charged with felonies, their pardons and paroles were revoked
and they were sent to prison.

Coleman was no fool. Among those he fingered were some people already
found guilty of drug offenses.

A reasonable caveat, but ... But the law providing compensation
denies payment to people who are serving concurrent sentences for
crimes other than the one of which they were falsely accused.

That's a reasonable caveat, but did legislators contemplate a
situation in which the only reason for a person being imprisoned for
one crime is that he or she was falsely accused of a second crime?

State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, whose office is in charge
of distributing payments for false imprisonment, thinks not.

Last month she wrote Attorney General Greg Abbott a letter asking for
a clarification, reports the Austin American-Statesman.

"Although I am fully satisfied that a great injustice occurred in
Tulia and that equity clearly justifies full payment, there is a
statutory issue that I am compelled to present to you for your
opinion," she said.

Her letter concerned the case of Jason Paul Fry, but the decision
will apply to others as well.

Fry was convicted of drug possession, but given probation -- a common
punishment in relatively minor drug possession cases.

It makes sense as a wake-up call, unless someone is then thrown in
prison for a bogus probation violation.

It is, of course, possible that some of those prosecuted based on
Coleman's testimony were guilty. In fact, one woman who was pardoned
told an FBI investigator that she had sold Coleman more drugs than
the charges against her indicated.

The district attorney who cleared the way for compensation with a
letter critical of Coleman's performance said some of the accused may
have been guilty. And Brent Hamilton, the Plainview lawyer
representing 19 of those seeking compensation, said the district
attorney "may not have been wrong."

But it is also clear that many of those convicted -- even some who,
under pressure pleaded guilty to lesser charges -- were falsely accused.

In America, fortunately, we don't believe in punishing a group of
people because some of them may have been guilty. We should not deny
just compensation to some because others may not deserve it.

Nor should we exclude those whose probation or parole was revoked
because of the discredited testimony of a disgraced police officer.