D.C. NARCOTICS 'EXPERT' CHARGED WITH PERJURY

Drug Specialist's Credentials Debunked

A former narcotics expert for the D.C. police department, who testified as
a government witness in thousands of criminal cases, has been charged with
perjury following the discovery that he had misrepresented his credentials.

Johnny St. Valentine Brown Jr. was a fixture in the local courts, helping
prosecutors win convictions with his easy-to-understand tutorials about the
drug trade. But his police career ended abruptly last summer when a lawyer
on a civil case checked Brown's background and questioned key claims made
by the detective in court and on his resume.

Brown had told juries he had a degree in pharmacology from Howard
University and that he was a board-certified pharmacist in the District.
Both claims suggested he had a special knowledge about the chemical makeup
and workings of drugs. As it turned out, he had no such degree or
certification from any institution, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors charged Brown on Wednesday in U.S. District Court with eight
counts of perjury, saying he misled them, too, citing testimony he provided
in eight trials. They alleged that Brown didn't even attend Howard's school
of pharmacy and said he also lied when he claimed under oath to have worked
as a pharmacist at local stores.

The charging document cited specific statements gleaned from trial
transcripts, including one passage from April in which Brown testified: "My
knowledge of the drug field is further enhanced by the fact that I am a
board-certified pharmacist as well. I receive, maintain, compound and
dispense narcotic as well as non-narcotic substances per prescription. . .
. I finished Howard's School of Pharmacy in 1968."

The filing in U.S. District Court came in a "criminal information," which
is different from a grand jury indictment. A criminal information can be
filed only with the consent of the defendant, who waives a grand jury
review of the evidence. The filing of a criminal information often is a
signal that a defendant intends to plead guilty.

Channing D. Phillips, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Wilma A. Lewis,
declined to say if prosecutors expect a guilty plea. Brown did not return
calls seeking comment.

Brown, 57, worked 29 years for the police department before resigning in
July. Nicknamed Jehru, he had extensive street experience on narcotics
cases, and had such a charismatic courtroom demeanor that attorneys rarely
challenged his expertise. He would explain the significance of the
prosecutors' evidence to jurors, tying it all together.

Brown's troubles began last summer when attorney Peter C. Grenier quizzed
him at a deposition and did some follow-up digging. Grenier represented
Terry Butera, the mother of Eric Butera, a D.C. police informant who was
slain in December 1997 while trying to help homicide detectives solve a
triple killing at a Starbucks coffee shop. Brown was to be the District's
expert witness, but Grenier doubted his claims about a pharmacology degree
and made calls to Howard University. That led to Brown's removal from the
case.

Senior U.S. District Judge June L. Green refused to permit the District to
name a replacement expert, and a jury ultimately awarded Butera $98
million, the largest verdict ever returned against the D.C. government. The
case is being appealed.

Grenier expressed surprise yesterday that none of the charges stemmed from
the deposition in his case. "I have Mr. Brown on videotape stating his
credentials," Grenier said.

The developments have led numerous defense attorneys to ask that
convictions be overturned in cases that featured Brown as the expert. Two
judges have ruled so far.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan found that the evidence against Gregory
Williams was so overwhelming that Brown's testimony made no difference, and
he upheld the conviction. In the other case, Senior U.S. District Judge
Stanley Sporkin found that Brown played a pivotal role in a jury's
conviction of Raymond Jones Jr. and ordered a new trial. Even though Brown
did not discuss his credentials in the Jones case, Sporkin found that
Brown's credibility was so shattered that his testimony was in question.