MONEY'S THE WRONG MOTIVE FOR STATE TO PURSUE PUERTAS

YOU KNOW something strange is afoot when the state's highest court
intervenes -- on party lines, no less -- to keep a 72-year-old man
from going free on bond.

But then, the Oakland County prosecutor's crusade against Joseph
Edmund Puertas has been a curious affair from the get-go.

Puertas, a Clarkston bar and bowling alley operator who spent nine of
his 72 years in prison for a 1981 narcotics conviction, was arrested
and charged with trafficking in cocaine after a 1998 raid in which
police seized $1.9 million -- but no drugs -- from homes and
businesses owned by Puertas and his family.

Stacked theatrically for the benefit of TV cameras, the money seemed
to cost-justify, in one fell swoop, the forfeiture unit newly elected
Republican Prosecutor David Gorcyca had established to parlay the
prosecution of drug dealers into a money-making enterprise.

But Gorcyca insisted it was the criminal case against Puertas that had
prompted the state's interest in Puertas' money, not the other way
around.

James Halushka, a ranking Gorcyca lieutenant who oversaw the raid,
mounted photographs of Puertas and a codefendant on his office wall
and pledged to return the aging bar operator to prison.

Holes in the case

But there were problems with the criminal case from the start. The
only witness who said he'd obtained cocaine from Puertas was a junkie
who later admitted perjuring himself during the preliminary
examination. A sheriff's deputy whose testimony had been crucial in
securing search warrants against Puertas admitted he had never
witnessed events described in affadavits.

According to internal police reports, the lead detective in the
investigation told his superiors there were problems with the case and
urged that prosecutors strike a plea bargain.

They tried, at one point floating a deal that would have allowed
Puertas to walk away with most of his money.

Prosecutor Paul Stablein said resolution of the criminal charges
against Puertas was never linked to a dollar figure and that any deal
was contingent on Puertas naming narcotics suppliers.

But three sources close to the case said that Puertas could have
walked in exchange for pleading guilty to narcotics trafficking,
undergoing a debriefing, and relinquishing about 15 percent of the $5
million in cash and other assets prosecutors had targeted.

In any event, Puertas declined to plead.

Last fall, after a trial in which Puertas' lawyers succeeded in
impeaching the state's key witnesses, a jury nevertheless convicted
him of cocaine trafficking.

The verdict stunned the Oakland County Courthouse. Lawyers and judges
familiar with the case speculated that Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen
O'Brien would order a retrial; among other things, prosecutors had
failed to provide Puertas' lawyer with police reports that cast doubt
on the credibility of the state's witnesses.

But O'Brien, a newly elected judge presiding over her first
high-profile criminal trial, had no interest in prolonging her
involvement in a case that was by now politically charged.

She let the verdict stand and sentenced Puertas to 14 years in prison.
Prosecutors proclaimed vindication.

But even before Puertas' lawyers filed their appeal, a Michigan Court
of Appeals panel found the argument for a new trial was strong enough
that Puertas should remain free for now.

Enraged prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court, which rarely
intervenes in bond matters. But Wednesday, in a 5-2 decision,
Republican justices asked the lower court panel to reconsider its
decision and ordered Puertas back to prison in the meantime.

Only the Court of Appeals' haste to beat a 3 p.m Thursday deadline set
by the higher court precluded Puertas' made-for-TV return to prison.

In a ruling reaffirming the Court of Appeals' original order, Judge
Martin Doctoroff noted pointedly that he and his colleagues were
obliged to rule on the merits of Puertas' bid for freedom "without
regard to political concerns ...or the publicity this case has received."

I am convinced that if Puertas receives a fair hearing on appeal, he
will be afforded a new trial in which shoddiness of the case against
him will be even more glaring.

Such a result would underline the dangers society courts when it gives
prosecutors a monetary incentive to pursue dubious criminal charges
against unpopular defendants.