Truth or Consequences:

FIRED: DISHONEST EMPLOYEE OR WHISTLE-BLOWER?

We're concerned over the fact that the Dallas County district attorney's
office has fired special investigator Willie Hughes.

The letter of termination cites as the "primary reasons for dismissal" that
Mr. Hughes was "dishonest with senior officials in this office and (had)
been instrumental in disseminating harmful lies about this office to the
news media." If the district attorney's office can demonstrate that Mr.
Hughes has been dishonest in his dealings with his superiors and spreading
lies, we have no quarrel with his dismissal. Employers must be able to trust
the integrity of those who work for them.

But what troubles us about the dismissal is Mr. Hughes' allegation that it
is in retaliation for his statements - in an affidavit to the FBI and orally
to reporters - that former prosecutors covered up evidence in drug cases and
that supervisors still on the job knowingly allowed the cover-ups.

State law prohibits the firing of government employees who in good faith
report wrongdoing by their employers to proper legal authorities. Given the
seriousness of the allegations leveled by Mr. Hughes against the district
attorney's office, it's easy to understand why Dallas County District
Attorney Bill Hill might like to be rid of this particular investigator. Mr.
Hughes essentially is charging that alleged wrongdoing he witnessed in the
prosecutor's office in 1999 should have been halted at the time by
supervisors. Mr. Hughes said he came forward out of concern that some of
these same supervisors might be trying to cover up the involvement of
prosecutors in the 2001 fake-drug scandal.

In that scandal, bags of confiscated "cocaine" were later determined to be
bags of harmless pool chalk and that informants planted this "evidence" on
victims. It seems reasonable to suggest that police officers and prosecutors
either knew something was amiss or should have known. The upshot of these
shenanigans: More than 24 people were arrested and jailed, in some cases for
months, on bogus drug charges. Eventually, prosecutors dismissed more than
80 drug cases stemming from these and other arrests that involved some of
the same law enforcement officials.

Complicating Mr. Hughes' situation is the fact that his friend, Tarrant
County prosecutor Mike Parrish, held a news conference in his home in
February, with Mr. Hughes present, to accuse Mr. Hill of improperly meeting
with Mr. Hughes for several hours that week in an attempt to get Mr. Hughes
to change his story concerning the earlier drug cases. A grand jury later
cleared Mr. Hill of those charges.

Since his dismissal last month, Mr. Hughes has filed a wrongful termination
grievance with county officials. Mr. Hill argues that whistle-blower
protections don't apply here.

Meanwhile, special prosecutor Dan Hagood, whom Mr. Hill appointed last year,
continues to investigate the fake-drug scandal.

So questions remain: Is Mr. Hughes a disgruntled employee who deserves to be
fired for being "dishonest with senior officials" in the district attorney's
office and who has been "disseminating harmful lies" about the office?

Or is Mr. Hughes an investigator trying to do what he thinks is right by
exposing misdeeds in the district attorney's office and who deserves
whistle-blower protection?

For the credibility of justice, the public deserves a clear, fair and
transparent answer.