CHANGING HIS STORY TO FIT THE CASE

At his sentencing in 1993, Ronald Whitley told a federal judge he'd
been a bit player in the major Kansas City cocaine ring that Anthony
Salem Rashid operated. Whitley argued that he didn't deserve the
minimum 20-year sentences other defendants faced.

He was illiterate and had done nothing more than help Rashid count
money a few times and maintain Rashid's many homes, Whitley and his
lawyer said.

The judge believed him. For pleading guilty, Whitley got a 10-year
sentence.

Two years later, the trials of four other defendants charged in the
same drug conspiracy got under way, and Whitley offered to testify in
exchange for another cut in his sentence. Prosecutors agreed.

Whitley took the stand and told jurors he'd been a top lieutenant in
the ring. He convincingly told a jury that he and others had
transported large caches of drugs from Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles
to Kansas City, Mo.

His testimony directly contradicted what he'd told a judge two years
before, but prosecutors didn't mention that to defense attorneys, who
wouldn't learn of Whitley's plea bargain statements until two years
after their defendants were convicted. Nor did prosecutors reveal
Whitley's extensive criminal record, which included an arrest for murder.

The other key witness in the trial was Rashid. When he was arrested in
Los Angeles, he had 76 kilograms of cocaine in his possession, but
prosecutors agreed to cut the 30-year sentence he faced to 10 years if
he'd testify against dealers who worked for him. Based largely on the
testimony of Whitley and Rashid, four men received sentences as long
as life in prison.

One of them was Harold Jones, who seemed an unlikely drug runner.
Jones worked two jobs, had few assets, was deeply in debt because of
credit cards and insisted he was being made the fall guy so that
Whitley and Rashid could win leniency.

For his "truthful" testimony and substantial help in the trial,
Whitley was set free. His 10-year sentence was reduced to time served.

Rashid did even better. His original charges would have put him in
prison for 30 years to life. For testifying against Jones, whom he
described as a man who purchased drugs from him over the years, the
government shortened his sentence to 10 years.

Then, as if by magic, it was reduced to five. While testifying against
Jones and the others, Rashid said he'd been promised a second
reduction in his now 10-year sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark
Miller assured the court and jurors that the government's deal with
Rashid was fulfilled. He said if Rashid filed motions for a second
sentence reduction, the government would argue vehemently against it.
Despite his cooperation, Rashid still qualified as a kingpin of the
drug network, Miller said.

After the defendants were convicted, Rashid filed a motion asking the
judge to force the government to fulfill its promises of a second
sentence reduction. Despite Miller's earlier protests in court, he
didn't contest Rashid's motion. Rashid won and has since gone free.

Jones, on the other hand, is serving a 23-year prison sentence, based
largely on the testimony of Whitley, who perjured himself, and Rashid,
who bought 25 years off his sentence by telling prosecutors what they
wanted to hear.

Jones and the other defendants didn't find out about Whitley's
transformation from gopher to key lieutenant until defense lawyers
were successful in getting a judge to unseal Whitley's sentencing
hearing transcript.

In March, all of the defendants asked an appeals court to reverse
their convictions based on Whitley's perjured statements and the
government's failure to turn over evidence that would have allowed
defense lawyers to impeach Whitley as a witness. They also said the
government did not fulfill its obligation to correct false testimony
after it occurred.

The district court judge had agreed that "some preposterous things
have happened in this case" but turned down their appeals based on the
"harmless error" doctrine, which means the judge decided that if the
truth about Whitley were known, the verdict would not have been different.

The defendants' appeal to the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals argues the
government knowingly presented false testimony to a jury and failed to
disclose discovery materials to defendants prior to trial.

The court recently ruled against them on all substantive
matters.

Checked-by: Richard Lake