DRUG SCANDAL TAKES A TURN

Lawyer Says Grand Jury Hearing Fake-Narcotic Suits; Indictments May Come
Soon, Experts Say

A federal grand jury has begun hearing from witnesses involved in a series
of phony drug cases filed last year by the Dallas Police Department, says a
defense lawyer for a confidential informant who has pleaded guilty in the
cases.

Legal experts say the convening of the grand jury could mean that the
investigation is entering the final stage before indictments are issued.
Others said federal law enforcement may be testing the credibility of three
confidential informants who have pleaded guilty to civil rights violations.

News of the grand jury comes amid word from a suspended police officer's
attorney that federal prosecutors have told him investigators think Senior
Cpl. Mark Delapaz was unaware the informants were planting fake drugs on
innocent people.

Attorney Bob Baskett's statement could not be confirmed with law
enforcement officials, but if accurate, would give the first glimpse of
what investigators have found in the 10 months since the inquiry began.

"The government has told me that they do not believe the officers had any
knowing participation in the fakeness of the drugs," Mr. Baskett said.
"They said, 'We don't believe that you knew these informants were setting
these people up with fake drugs.' They're investigating any ancillary kinds
of issues that may come up, money and records and all that."

Mr. Baskett was referring to pay vouchers that the informants allege were
forged; sworn search warrant affidavits containing events that allegedly
never occurred; and whether officers actually performed field tests on the
seized evidence.

Cpl. Delapaz and Officer Eddie Herrera were placed on paid leave after the
FBI launched its investigation early this year. Officer Herrera's defense
attorney, Kenny Kirby, said he was unaware of any grand jury testimony
about or government interest in his client.The FBI also is investigating
previous drug cases made by a third officer, Senior Cpl. David Larsen,
because he accompanied Cpl. Delapaz and Officer Herrera on drug busts made
with the discredited informants, said Dallas County District Attorney Bill
Hill.

Mr. Hill said his office reviewed and turned over to the FBI previous drug
cases Cpl. Larsen made because the FBI wanted to ensure a thorough
investigation. He declined to say whether the FBI had requested the cases
of any other officers, but he said he is sure all of the tainted cases have
been identified.

Cpl. Larsen is still active in the Dallas police narcotics division.

Mr. Baskett, who also represents Cpl. Larsen, said forwarding the cases of
Officer Larsen and any other officer who worked in the narcotics unit last
year would be routine and expected. Officer Larsen has not been tied to any
case involving fake drugs, Mr. Baskett said.Cpl. Larsen also remains in
good standing at the district attorney's office, Mr. Hill said.

"Until we find conclusive evidence that he has done something wrong, we
have no basis to do anything against him," Mr. Hill said. "We don't have
any conclusive evidence that any police officer did anything wrong."

Mr. Hill says that his office has put new safeguards in place to ensure
such a scandal could never occur again with any police agency that files
cases in Dallas County.

Meanwhile, a former informant's lawyer says that at least three paid
informants used by Dallas police narcotics officers in more than 80 cases
that prosecutors later threw out have testified before the grand jury in
recent weeks.

Scheduled sentencing hearings for all three former informants have been
postponed indefinitely. A judge will determine the value of their
cooperation as part of the sentencing process.

Enrique Alonso struck a plea deal in September to tell what he knows about
police involvement in exchange for a lighter sentence. Mr. Alonso hired and
paid other informants to help create fake drugs from pool chalk, or gypsum,
and plant large quantities on innocent people, who then were arrested by
his police handlers.

Prosecutors face credibility problems in using Mr. Alonso as a witness
against police, in part because he has given conflicting accounts about his
role.

Mr. Alonso's attorney declined to discuss what Mr. Alonso has told
authorities or a grand jury.

"He's given his word that he's going to cooperate fully, and he's honoring
that obligation," attorney Barry Sorrels said.

Karl Rupp, who represents Reyes Roberto Rodriguez, an informant who worked
for Mr. Alonso, said his client has testified before the grand jury twice.
Mr. Rodriguez has told investigators that sworn arrest warrant affidavits
filed by officers and based on their personal surveillance contained
accounts of events that the officers did not witness, suggesting that
information was fabricated to get arrest warrants, Mr. Rupp said.

Mr. Rodriguez repeated those statements to the grand jury, he said.

"The focus ... is with respect to assertions of fact made in the police
reports, whether things they said they saw happened are true," Mr. Rupp
said. "There is a host of those where the answer is no."

Mr. Baskett said he does not make much of the fact that the informants are
testifying before a federal grand jury.

"Sometimes, particularly in high-profile cases, a grand jury review is all
part of the process," he said. "Keep in mind, if all they have against my
clients are the word of these no-goods, these ne'er-do-wells trying to get
themselves out of a lifetime of prison, I can't imagine anyone would think
that's a case worth prosecuting."

Attorney William Nellis, who represents informant Jose Ruiz-Serrano, has
said his client had limited contact with police and could not testify that
they directed the group's activities. He said Mr. Ruiz-Serrano has told
authorities that police forged department pay vouchers for at least $24,000
he never saw.

Dallas FBI Special Agent in Charge Guadalupe Gonzalez declined to discuss
specifics of the investigation, when it would probably be finished or
whether grand jury testimony was under way.

Agent Gonzalez did say he recently added agents and analysts to the
investigation "to ensure we cover every possible angle of that" more
quickly. "This case is critical to us," he said. "We're trying to move it
along as fast as possible."

Some legal experts say the fact that important witnesses are testifying to
a grand jury means the investigation may have matured to a phase that often
produces criminal indictments.

"When you start presenting live witnesses to a grand jury, it doesn't look
good for the targets," said Dallas criminal defense attorney Billy Ravkind,
who is not involved in the case. "It's definitely a strong indication that
they are attempting to get an indictment."

Sometimes prosecutors send witnesses to the grand jury to enhance the
credibility of statements they've given to investigators and as a way to
help the witnesses understand they can be more easily prosecuted for
perjury if they are caught lying.

"There are times when a prosecutor must use cooperating witnesses who are
without clean hands," said former U.S. Attorney Marvin Collins. "Under
those circumstances, occasionally a prosecutor may determine a witness
should appear before the grand jury ... under oath so they know what they
can rely on if a case is indicted and goes to trial."