MISCONDUCT TRIAL OPENS FOR FORMER DRUG DETECTIVES

Former Metro Narcotics detective Mark Watson was a soldier in the war on
drugs who bent the rules but provided a valuable service to the community,
according to his lawyer.

Christie Richardson, who worked with Watson, was a loyal partner who put
too much trust in the wrong person, her attorney said.

But a prosecutor in one of the largest police misconduct trials in
Jefferson County disputed both descriptions -- made in opening arguments
yesterday during the officers' trial in Jefferson Circuit Court.

''Every war has its traitors,'' Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Jonathan
Dyar said. ''You're looking at them.''

The former detectives, who have pleaded innocent to hundreds of counts, are
accused of stealing payments to informants, creating search warrants by
lying or photocopying judges' signatures, and theft.

Richardson's attorney, Steve Schroering, sounded more like a prosecutor as
he made it clear that his client's defense would hinge on blaming Watson
for any wrongdoing.

''Christie Richardson should not be here today,'' and she will take the
stand to explain her story, Schroering said. An attorney for Watson, Mary
Sharp, said her client bent rules in his fight against illegal drugs but
did not profit from those shortcuts.

''As you hear the testimony, remember the benefits our community has reaped
from his efforts,'' she said.

In his opening, Dyar said both detectives had destroyed the document they
were sworn to uphold -- the U.S. Constitution.

Holding a copy of the Constitution, Dyar asked the jurors not to lose sight
of it among the dozens of warrants, payment forms and other documents they
will have to consider.

''It's the document that matters most in this case. And it's the document
that they had this much care for,'' he said, crumpling it.

Watson and Richardson, who resigned from the county police last year, are
accused of creating bogus search warrants with photocopied judges'
signatures, with obtaining warrants through the use of fraudulent
affidavits and with obtaining payments for informants who say they never
got the money.

The charges include burglary, possession of a forged instrument, tampering
with public records, bribing a witness, theft, perjury and official
misconduct. In addition, Watson faces one count of harassing a witness.

If Watson, 39, and Richardson, 36, are found guilty of all the charges
against them, they could be sentenced to up to 70 years in prison.

Their alleged misdeeds occurred over about 13 months, starting around
January 2001, and the two are accused in connection with 133 separate
incidents of wrongdoing, according to court records.

Jefferson Circuit Judge Steve Mershon seated 16 jurors for the case -- four
of whom will be designated later as alternates.

Dyar began his opening statement reciting the oath that Watson and
Richardson both took to become county police officers.

Watson and Richardson both were ''star players'' in Metro Narcotics, a
joint agency of Louisville and Jefferson County, Dyar said. The number of
cases they brought exceeded what other detectives did, he said.

''Their statistics were inflated by corruption of staggering proportions,''
he said.

In Watson's opening, Sharp questioned the credibility of prosecution
witnesses -- suspects in drug cases and confidential informants -- and the
motives they would have for testifying. She said that her client is a
scapegoat for a poorly operated narcotics unit and that supervisors didn't
follow procedures for reviewing detectives' work.

''Metro Narcotics was sloppy,'' she said. ''It was not well-run.''

Watson's zeal for removing drugs from the streets prompted him to bend
rules, she said.

''He's admitted that and he may get up here (on the witness stand) and tell
you that himself,'' she said.

Burglary charges require someone to break into a building with the intent
to commit a crime, but Sharp said no evidence supports anything other than
Watson entering a residence to remove illegal drugs, guns or drug money.

''His only intention was to stop the crime going on inside,'' she said.
''And that's his job.''

Regarding allegations that Watson made up cases, Sharp said he would let
some people go after taking their drugs if they would give him the names of
three dealers, she said.

In his opening for Richardson, Schroering sought to separate his client
from Watson, asking jurors to look at each defendant individually.

Evidence shows that Watson wrote Richardson's name on false citations and
signed affidavits on the warrants with photocopied judges' signatures,
Schroering said.

The indictment, however, in the counts where both are charged, said they
acted alone or in conjunction with one another.

Richardson did sign as a witness to payments to informants, Schroering
said, because she trusted Watson. The paperwork routinely would be done at
the office after the transaction, the lawyer said.

Richardson didn't know of any wrongdoing, Schroering said.

''She trusted Mark Watson just like the supervisors trusted him,''
Schroering said. ''. . . She trusted him with her life, and that was a bad
decision. That trust was what has destroyed her career.''

In the war on drugs, Watson became a ''criminal,'' Schroering said, ''but
I'm asking you, don't let him destroy her.''