APPEALS COURT THROWS OUT PART OF DRUG CASE CONVICTION

FORT WORTH -- A Fort Worth federal judge prevented defense lawyers
from adequately cross-examining a government witness, according to a
federal appeals court that threw out part of a drug conviction this
week.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans vacated Rudy Van
Williams' conviction on one drug possession count. The court affirmed
his conviction on a conspiracy count.

Williams, of Fort Worth, was one of 12 people convicted in two related
drug-conspiracy trials before U.S. District Judge John McBryde in
August 1996.

The reversal will not have much effect on Williams, even though
Assistant U.S. Attorney St. Clair Theodore said he does not intend to
retry him on the possession count. Williams was sentenced to 262
months, about 22 years, for each count, but the sentences were to run
concurrently.

Williams' attorney, Timmie White, still claimed victory.

"Rudy Williams didn't win," he said. "The criminal justice system
won." Lawyers often criticize McBryde -- known for moving quickly
through his "rocket docket" -- for limiting the length and scope of
questioning in trials. His supporters call him appropriately strict
and efficient. During Williams' trial, McBryde prevented defense
attorneys from cross-examining a government witness about inconsistent
statements.

Ronnie Bennett, a co-defendant who had accepted a plea bargain,
initially told police that he purchased crack cocaine from two other
co-defendants, Stacey Wynn and Jesse Jackson Jr. He later said he
bought it from Williams. On the stand, Bennett stuck with the second
account.

Under direct examination by prosecutors, Bennett offered an
explanation. "Bennett testified that he originally named Wynn and
Jackson because he knew that they were already under investigation for
cocaine distribution and he did not want to cast suspicion on
Williams," the appeals court opinion states.

McBryde did not permit Williams' attorney or other defense lawyers to
cross-examine Bennett on the inconsistencies because he had "freely
admitted" to them on direct examination, the opinion states.

"The practice of introducing impeaching statements on direct
examination in order to minimize their effect is a `time-honored
trial tactic,' " the opinion states. "However, when the government
steals the defense's thunder by presenting a prior inconsistent
statement as part of its direct examination of a witness, this does
not destroy the defense's right to cross-examination on those
statements."

Laura Vozzella, (817) 390-7688 Send your comments to
vozzella@star-telegram.com