COURT TO DECIDE LEGALITY OF REWARDING INFORMANTS

WICHITA, Kan. - Sonya Singleton's name may soon go down in legal
history - right beside Ernesto Miranda, Dred Scott and Jane Roe as
people whose battles in the courts dramatically changed American society.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Singleton will ask a federal appeals court
in Denver to make a decision that legal experts say could throw the
criminal justice system into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands
of cases could be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of
its most powerful investigative tool.

The issue is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they use
witnesses who have been paid money or given reduced prison sentences
in return for testifying in criminal trials.

Ms. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts.
Since July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals
court, have ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify
during a trial.

U.S. Justice Department officials are so worried about losing the case
that they are already lobbying Congress for legislation that would
protect federal prosecutors from bribery charges and allow the
government to continue its use of witnesses who have been rewarded.

Prosecutors say a decision in Ms. Singleton's favor would jeopardize
the convictions - all of which remain on appeal - of Timothy McVeigh,
Terry Nichols, Manuel Noriega and those involved in the World Trade
Center bombing.

"Law enforcement should be extremely nervous about this case," said
Ron Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia and an
expert on criminal law. "Not since the Miranda decision in 1966 forced
police to read suspects their rights to remain silent and access to a
lawyer have we seen a case with such far-reaching and explosive potential."

Getting nervous

Authorities in Dallas are also nervous about the possible
ramifications of the Singleton litigation. And they should be.

More than 86 percent of a sampling of federal criminal cases in Dallas
and Fort Worth between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants
and co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return for
testimony, according to a review of nearly 300 cases by The Dallas
Morning News.

Some of the informants were paid thousands of dollars for their
cooperation. Most received a reduction in the amount of time they
would serve in prison for their crimes. The cases mostly involved drug
offenses, illegal-gun charges and various white-collar
conspiracies.

"If this case stands, law enforcement would be seriously hampered in
our ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," said U.S.
Attorney Paul Coggins of Dallas. "This case makes every prosecutor,
every judge, every defense attorney co-conspirators in a federal
bribery case. I don't think that can be allowed to stand."

The case began last year when Wichita police and federal agents
arrested dozens of people they alleged were involved in a conspiracy
to launder money and distribute cocaine. Among those arrested was
Sonya Singleton, a 25-year-old mother of two. Prosecutors said she
helped wire some of the drug money between Kansas and California - a
charge Ms. Singleton denied.

During her trial, the only witness able to identify Ms. Singleton as
part of the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted cocaine
dealer who had cut a deal with prosecutors. Officials agreed to reduce
Mr. Douglas' prison sentence from 15 years to five years in return for
his cooperation. Ms. Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to four

years in a Texas federal prison.

Buying witnesses

But on appeal earlier this year, John Van Wachtel, Ms. Singleton's
lawyer, argued that the prosecutors' deal with Mr. Douglas violated
federal bribery laws, which prohibit "whoever" from giving, offering
or promising "anything of value" to a witness in exchange for
testimony. The law doesn't exempt prosecutors, he said.

"They bought this witness, offered him the most precious commodity
known to man - freedom," said Mr. Wachtel. "With the deal he got, he
was going to tell the government anything they wanted to hear, even if
that meant lying."

In July, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Denver unanimously agreed, reversing Ms. Singleton's conviction on
the ground that the leniency deal with Mr. Douglas was illegal.

"Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much
prohibited as buying perjured testimony," the three judges said in
their opinion. "If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant
seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when
the government does so."

The decision rocked the criminal justice system. Texas Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers president Kent Schaffer praised it as "one of
the most enlightened opinions" in decades. Justice Department
attorneys said it "caused chaos and significant disruptions" in their
practices. Most judges were stunned.

"If you read the 10th Circuit opinion, it's well-reasoned and easily
supported by federal law," said a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "But
the results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a
situation like that - follow the law or try to devise a way around
it?"

Ten days after the decision, the full 12-member 10th Circuit Court
agreed to review the decision. Only three additional judges are needed
to join the three judges from the original panel to uphold the panel's
decision. Both sides agree an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is certain.

The original ruling was only enforceable in the 10th Circuit, which
includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But
in the four months since the decision, federal trial judges in
Florida, Louisiana and Tennessee have cited the 10th Circuit opinion
in refusing to allow informant testimony.

Wait-and-see mode

Meanwhile, at least a dozen judges in other states have either delayed
making such decisions until the full 10th Circuit rules, or have
simply rejected the 10th Circuit's reasoning. Judges in nearly every
state report lawyers filing "Singleton motions" in their respective
cases to have informant testimony thrown out.

The U.S. Justice Department argues that the 10th Circuit's decision
"would cripple law enforcement" and "lead to absurd results."
Prosecutors say Congress never intended for the bribery laws to apply
to the deals they make with informants.

"I would eat my hat if this case is not reversed," said Susan Klein, a
law professor at the University of Texas and a former federal
prosecutor. "This would eliminate the prime tool law enforcement has
in combating crime, and that is the ability to reach down into a
criminal operation and catch a low-level fish and cut them a deal in
return for their cooperation.

"The system depends upon this, and I can't imagine the courts putting
tens of thousands of investigations, trials and convictions in
jeopardy over this."

However, defense lawyers and many judges argue that the system's
reliance on informants has undermined public confidence in the court
system. They say the Singleton case offers an opportunity for the
courts and Congress to make necessary improvements.

Too often, said San Antonio criminal defense attorney Gerald
Goldstein, authorities rely exclusively on paid informants and
co-defendants-turned-informants and have no corroborating evidence to
support the informant's testimony.

"Every day, there are people being sent to prison for many years

solely based on the word of career criminals who are manipulating the
criminal justice system as informants," said Terry Hart, a former
federal prosecutor in Dallas. "The best thing about this case is that
it should make all of us rethink the use of informants and dealmaking
for the sake of fairness and justice."

Checked-by: Rich O'Grady