U.S. AGAIN IS PROSECUTING WITH SNITCH AS A WITNESS

Former government supersnitch Andrew Chambers was taken off the payroll
after the attorney general of the United States wondered why he was still on
it.

Three federal courts have called the former University City resident a
perjurer.

And the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says it is conducting a
yearlong investigation to find out how he got away with lying in court for
the agency for 16 years.

None of that apparently is deterring government prosecutors from calling
Chambers yet again to reprise his role as a star courtroom witness.

A case set for February before a U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles
pits Chambers against another government snitch:

Dave Daley was working undercover for Los Angeles police three years ago
when Chambers accused him of taking $500 to set up the sale of a gallon of
the drug PCP.

Daley, 38, already has five drug convictions; he faces life in prison if a
jury believes Chambers' account of what Daley told him at a car wash.

Chambers, 43, dropped out of the old Mercy High School here and went on to
become the most valuable undercover snitch in DEA history. He never won the
agent's badge he coveted but he did become a legend among drug agents
nationwide for his ability to get close to suspected dealers and turn them
in to the feds. He helped send hundreds to prison.

In exchange, the DEA paid him more than $2.2 million - representing just a
small portion of the value of drugs he helped take off the streets.

Why is any of this important? Who cares what happens to yet another
suspected California drug dealer?

Critics say that the DEA's dependence on a snitch who lies illustrates how
agents bend the law to get convictions. A Post-Dispatch investigation has
documented that for years agents watched in courtrooms as Chambers testified
that he had never been arrested or convicted.

He has since admitted he lied.

Some DEA agents knew it - they helped get him out of trouble with the law.

Agents also apparently have been less than forthcoming about telling
prosecutors their snitch's full background. Critics say prosecutors either
were duped or looked the other way when they put a known liar on the witness
stand.

In court records, attorneys for Daley accuse a DEA agent of lying to a grand
jury by testifying that an unidentified, undercover informer - since
identified as Chambers - had a history of being "reliable."

The defense attorneys also accuse the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles
of misconduct for failing for two years to identify Chambers as the informer
and for not disclosing his history of courtroom lies.

Prosecutors are required by law to give that information to defendants.

For two years, the defense attorneys allege in court records, "the
government sat quietly on its knowledge of Andrew Chambers and his dubious
record of perjury, lies, arrests, convictions and other uncharged conduct."

Between the cracks

The DEA and federal prosecutors each say they are blameless. And besides,
they add, some things just fall between the cracks.

A DEA spokesman in Washington says he won't comment on why prosecutors are
willing to use a discredited, suspended snitch as a star witness.

"That's not our decision," said DEA spokesman Mike McManus.

For her part, the federal prosecutor in Los Angeles assigned to the Daley
case points the finger back at the drug agency.

"It's a DEA case," says Assistant U.S. Attorney Lizabeth A. Rhodes.

She says there are too many government snitches for prosecutors to keep
track of all their backgrounds. Chambers was one of 4,500 DEA informers.

Rhodes adds that just because some prosecutors in an office know a snitch's
history of lying doesn't mean all the prosecutors do.

"You know how many attorneys there are in this office?" she asked. "Over
200. So you do the math."

Rhodes was not a prosecutor when Daley was charged in 1997. She took over
the case from another prosecutor and says that when she discovered Chambers'
role, she disclosed his background.

"Everything was turned over in this case," she emphasized.

Attorneys for Daley say that tardy action doesn't excuse what they call the
government's prior misconduct in the case.

Defense attorney John Martin met last month with prosecutor Rhodes and her
boss, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. Martin told
them he was planning to go to court to accuse the government of
prosecutorial misconduct; he said he wanted to make sure the top prosecutor
was aware of the government's long history of deceit.

Said Martin: "The problem is a consistent pattern of lying to the courts
about Chambers. The problem is an abuse of judicial process, with false
statements under oath" amid overwhelming evidence that DEA knew about the
lies.

Martin noted that the day after his client was charged, the same U.S.
attorney's office issued charges in a different drug case in which Chambers
was a witness. But this time, the government made some damaging admissions:
=B7 Despite having been arrested numerous times, the informer has testified
repeatedly under oath that he had no criminal history, the government
acknowledged. The informer also admitted lying on the witness stand about
paying taxes on his DEA earnings, using false names and about how much he
was paid. =B7 The government also admitted paying Chambers more than $1
million - really more than twice that, it admitted more recently - and
interceding to get a felony warrant against Chambers dismissed. The
government gave none of that information to Daley and his attorney a day
earlier when he was charged.

On Nov. 9, Rhodes and her boss wrote a letter answering Martin's
allegations:

"Based on your presentation and our review of the case, we believe that our
office was at fault for its inconsistent approach to the submission of
information regarding the informant."

But the letter went on to add: "It is our position, however, that the error
was not intentional and, in any event, was not material . . ."

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney said he had no comment about Chambers or
the Daley case.

Daley remains in jail, awaiting trial.

Dueling snitches

The DEA has always maintained that Chambers lied only about himself - not
about what he claimed drug dealers did. The agency also insists that
everything Chambers alleged was taped and corroborated by agents.

Rhodes insists there is corroboration in the Daley case - including a
confession Daley made after his arrest.

Martin says Daley made a statement to agents before he or his attorneys knew
about Chambers' background; Martin hopes to get the confession thrown out.

Martin also says that the government's case rests solely upon what Chambers
says Daley said. No agents were present and there are no tapes of the key
meeting between the two snitches, Martin says in court records.

At the time Daley met Chambers, Daley was working undercover for the LAPD.
His attorney says Daley's actions led to the apprehension of a drug kingpin
and the convictions of 20 members of a violent street gang.

Records show that Chambers has worked for the DEA in Los Angeles since
1987 - and has been lying about his background just as long. The U.S.
attorney's office knew him well - he's worked for some 14 prosecutors there.

Last December, one of those prosecutors tried to explain to a panel of
judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, Calif., why the
government had failed to disclose Chambers' history of arrests, convictions
and lies to the judge and defense lawyers in a murder-for-hire case.
Information from Chambers was the key to the government convincing a judge
to issue a wiretap.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Wolfe told the appellate court it was clear
that the DEA agents never put any derogatory material in Chambers' files -
even though agency regulations require it.

Said the embarrassed prosecutor: The "failure to disclose Chambers'
background was a shameful dereliction of government duty."

Wolfe told the judges he couldn't defend Chambers: "He's undefendable."

Soon after Wolfe's admissions, lawyers at the Justice Department in
Washington agreed to start telling defendants about the damaging evidence
the government has in its files about Chambers.

In January, the Post-Dispatch documented the government's lengthy use of
Chambers. The next month, Attorney General Janet Reno ordered him suspended,
pending the results of an investigation.

The DEA says Chambers remains "deactivated" and off the payroll. But that
doesn't mean prosecutors can't use him as a witness, a DEA spokesman says.

As for the agency's internal investigation, it was supposed to have been
completed in May. The agency spokesman said a report of the investigation is
finished, but won't be released until senior DEA officials approve it.

In May, the Post-Dispatch reported that a draft of the report misstated
facts in an apparent effort to cover up an agency cover-up of its dealings
with Chambers.

In California, Martin says the government did finally disclose Chambers'
history - but only after Martin got that and much more from H. Dean Steward,
then a federal public defender in nearby Orange County, who had spent years
investigating Chambers.

Steward, now in private practice, describes the government's latest use of
Chambers as "arrogant."

"It's stunning," Steward added, "that this or any U.S. attorney would even
consider using Chambers at this point. Even DEA has admitted that they made
a huge mistake."