ROBESON D.A. REVIEWS LAWMENS' CASES

LUMBERTON - The arrest of two Robeson County sheriff's deputies has the
District Attorney's Office reviewing cases the men investigated to
determine whether they can be prosecuted.

The arrest of Lt. Roger Taylor and detective James Jacobs on Sept. 12
raises questions about their credibility, prosecutors and defense lawyers say.

Taylor and Jacobs were arrested on conspiracy and obstruction of justice
charges. They are accused of allowing a convicted felon to carry a weapon
during a sting operation and then trying to impede an SBI investigation
into the incident.

District Attorney Johnson Britt asked the SBI to investigate in April 2002
after questions were raised about a home-invasion case in November 2001.

Sheriff Glenn Maynor suspended both men without pay on Sept. 12, the day
they were arrested by the State Bureau of Investigation. Taylor has worked
with the Sheriff's Office since July 1991. Jacobs was hired in December 1993.

This is the second time within a year that the credibility of deputies in
the Sheriff's Office has come into question.

Superior Court Judge Gregory Weeks threw out evidence in a drug case in
September 2002 after learning that Lt. Tommy Strickland falsified
information to get a search warrant.

Strickland, who was the supervisor of the sheriff's drug task force,
resigned in June because his credibility had become an issue. He had been
with the department since 1990.

The District Attorney's Office will have to determine whether it can
prosecute cases involving the three officers without calling them to
testify. Britt said he has not dismissed any cases involving the lawmen at
this point.

"We will have to look at it on a case-by-case basis," he said. "They are
involved in some cases where some people are charged with serious crimes.
My office won't dismiss these cases just because these officers were involved."

There are 108 charges involving 53 defendants where Jacobs is the officer
who filed the complaint, Britt said. The cases are primarily drug and
weapons charges, he said. There are no cases involving Taylor.

There are 43 charges pending involving 9 defendants where Strickland was
the officer, Britt said.

Maynor has repeatedly declined to answer questions about how the arrests
and Strickland's resignation affect the credibility of his department. He
also would not discuss whether he has made changes to address problems
raised by the investigation.

Maynor said he hopes the incidents will not overshadow the good work done
by the Sheriff's Office.

"For nine years we have made an effort to be fair and effective with our
dealings with the public and with the different offices throughout the
county," he said. "We will continue to make those efforts."

The Sheriff's Office will continue to improve the working relationship with
the District Attorney's Office, he said.

"I have instructed my employees that this is an isolated case," he said.
"We will work with the DA's Office in harmony to bring about justice for
the citizens in our county."

Maynor declined to comment further about the cases.

'Wait and see'

The District Attorney's Office will have to take a "wait-and-see approach"
on how credibility issues will affect the prosecution of the cases, Britt said.

"If there is an allegation that a police officer has done something that is
believed to be corrupt or dirty, the jury will question their credibility,"
he said. "If they have done something to question their believability the
defense attorney is aware of it and will harp on that issue."

Public Defender Angus Thompson said the incidents raise concerns.

"Especially if they have testified in some cases," Thompson said. "This may
have all kinds of consequences, such as defendants involved in cases
prosecuted over the past year wanting their cases reopened. With pending
cases, it will be open season."

Thompson said the officers have not been convicted.

"Just because the person is indicted doesn't mean the person is guilty," he
said. "The jury is still out on that.

"It's just unfortunate for everyone, especially law enforcement, to have
this blemish because of the indictments. But it will be scrutinized."

Thompson said the District Attorney's Office should have made defense
lawyers aware of the allegations.

Criminal lawyer Hubert Rogers III said defense lawyers will more than
likely question the officers' credibility when defending their clients.

"We would be obligated to if the state's case has a weakness and if the
weakness is that the credibility of the officer is in serious doubt,"
Rogers said.

The credibility issue is not limited to the Sheriff's Office, Rogers said.
Two Lumberton police officers were placed on administrative leave in
January after being accused of planting evidence on a suspected drug
dealer. One of the officers, James Jordan, resigned in April. Lt. Leon
Oxendine is still on leave. The incident is being investigated by the SBI.

Jordan had worked for the city since August 2001. He was a member of the
city's selective enforcement team, five officers trained to work in
high-crime, drug-infested areas.

Oxendine, who commands the unit, has worked at the department since 1978.

"Despite all that, now this," Rogers said. "Law enforcement has a
credibility problem across the board.

"Chief (Robert) Grice and Sheriff Maynor are both capable administrators
and the officers involved have been on the job for an extended time. They
are not newcomers. This poses a difficult dilemma for the chief and the
sheriff. . The problem of credibility has arisen that will cause problems
for the state."

Grice, the Lumberton police chief, said he understands that the state's
case hinges on the credibility of the officers.

"Any time when you have a situation like this going on within your
department it does raise credibility factors of those particular officers
in question," Grice said. "We understand that, and we will be working
closely with the district attorney regarding any case these officers are
involved in. Together we will make the best decision under the circumstances."

Concerns expressed

Britt said he expressed concerns about the credibility issue to Maynor in
October 2002. The District Attorney's Office has changed its procedure for
dealing with informants. Lawmen must now provide extensive information
about the informant, including criminal history, how much the person is
paid, the informant's name and how many times the law enforcement agency
has used the informant.

"My office will continue to work with the Sheriff's Department," Britt
said. "We have a very good relationship with many of the officers that work
there. We may have differences in opinions about prosecuting cases.
Ultimately, the decision to prosecute is mine and my assistants."