FAKE-DRUG CASE WITNESSES SET

Dallas Officers Will Testify For Ex-Detective's Prosecution, Defense

Dozens of Dallas police officers will testify for and against former
Detective Mark Delapaz as he faces federal charges of lying in police
reports about innocent people arrested on bogus drug charges.

According to court documents filed by both sides Wednesday in advance of
the Nov. 10 trial, federal prosecutors will call up to 118 witnesses in
their case against the former detective. Those expected to testify include
detectives who directly participated in the drug busts and who have refused
to cooperate with civil attorneys suing Mr. Delapaz and the city on behalf
of those who were falsely arrested.

Defense attorney Paul Coggins will call up to 65 witnesses, including Mr.
Delapaz's former partner, Officer Eddie Herrera. Mr. Delapaz is listed as a
"probable" defense witness. Officer Herrera remains on paid leave from the
department and has not been charged.

Mr. Coggins has said in previous interviews that he will mount a broad
defense questioning Police Department procedures and showing that police
commanders were aware of his client's work.

The defense team's "possible" witnesses include fired Police Chief Terrell
Bolton and current police supervisors. Among those commanders are narcotics
division Deputy Chief John Martinez and former division supervisor Deputy
Chief William Turnage, who was promoted from lieutenant weeks after
questions about the drug busts surfaced.

After a 15-month FBI investigation, Mr. Delapaz was indicted in April 2003
on charges that he provided false information in the cases.

Agreeing to 'evil motive'

To reach a guilty verdict, jurors will have to agree that the former
detective "willfully" lied on arrest warrants and to a Dallas County
prosecutor and that he acted with a "bad purpose or evil motive,"
prosecution documents show.

Mr. Delapaz has also been charged with lying to an FBI agent who was
investigating the matter. He faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

Four prosecution witnesses are expected to testify about how they were
falsely arrested by Mr. Delapaz, who was working with confidential
informants to make the arrests. Several former confidential informants
themselves former drug dealers ­ will testify about their working
relationship with the detective and elaborate on how they fabricated fake
drugs and set up innocent people for arrest, according to court files.

Three of the informants have pleaded guilty to setting up innocent people
with fake drugs and are cooperating with prosecutors. What remains unclear
is whether Mr. Delapaz was involved in the conspiracy.

Questions also remain about what happened to some of the more than $275,000
that documents show police paid to the informants in these cases. One civil
attorney for a former confidential informant said his client never received
the money that department documents say he did.

Mr. Delapaz said in arrest affidavits and to a Dallas County prosecutor
that he saw drug deals between confidential informants and those arrested.
The federal indictment says the detective was lying when he said he
witnessed the events. Without those statements from him, there would not
have been probable cause to obtain arrest warrants, prosecutors say.

Pool chalk 'drugs'

Those arrested in the cases were charged with possession of large sometimes
record-breaking ­ amounts of cocaine or methamphetamine. They sat in jail
in lieu of high bail amounts, facing charges that could have brought life
prison sentences until lab tests months later revealed that the white
powdery substances were composed almost entirely of gypsum, the primary
ingredient in Sheetrock or pool chalk.

While the federal trial focuses only on four cases, lab tests on 25 large
drug seizures made by the officer in 2001 found the purported drugs to be
phony. In some of the cases, the substances were entirely fake; others had
less than 1 percent real drugs mixed in.

Dallas County prosecutors threw out more than 80 other drug cases because
of their links to the narcotics officers or the confidential informants.

Both sides have given U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn notice that they
have concerns that prospective jurors could be biased by intense media
coverage the cases have received. They each plan to question jurors
extensively about their knowledge of the scandal, as well as their feelings
about police officers and drug laws.