Now that the Governor has determined to grant a remission of guilt under art. IV, sec. 11 of the Constitution to those convicted of delivering drugs to the Lawman of the Year, presumably the CCA will not be called upon to determine whether they also qualified for relief under Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d at 677-8. Given the overtones of race discrimination in the case and the fact that so many persons were raising the same claims at the same time, it is not hard to see why the trial judge made the findings he did. But, I imagine the CCA will no doubt breathe much easier now that the Governor has taken the matter from their hands. I say this because an action under art. 11.07 is meant to act as a mechanism for freeing the innocent. It seems to me the court might easily have had to again say: "Although applicant's evidence is important, it is limited to the impeachment of [Coleman's] claim * * * It certainly calls into question h[is] veracity in general, but only collaterally affects h[is] accusation against applicant. This evidence standing alone, however, it is not dispositive of applicant's claim of innocence. Applicant's writ is based upon the theory espoused in Herrera and as such he must establish his innocence of the crime by clear and convincing evidence and not merely that he would be found not guilty by a subsequent jury."

Does anyone have any idea where Coleman actually obtained the drugs he claimed were delivered to him by the Tulia defendants? Did any of the defendants attempt to support their claims by polygraph examinations? Whether or not Coleman now gets convicted of perjury, he has done a tremendous disservice to his former profession and made the jobs of all involved in law enforcement measurably more difficult. I just wish there were truly some way of determining what the truth in the delivery cases was. Coleman knows, but unfortunately it seems doubtful we will be hearing from him.

I could wax on indefinately on this matter, but I will limit myself to answer the one question. The drugs involved came from the defendants. The allegations of perjury do not even mention the underlying criminal cases. I have been told, but have not seen it myself, that many of the defendants told FBI agents that they, in fact, sold drugs to Coleman but insisted he picked on them because of their race. If you will note, no where in Judge Chapman's findings or in any of the pleadings is the race issue raised for found to be true. The sole issue was whether Coleman's past was Brady material and whether should have been or was provided to the defense. The "defense team" has done a wonderful job of employing the tried and true tactic of "if you tell a big enough lie often enough all will believe it is true."

Perhaps this is simply the ranting of a neophyte, but it would be extremely difficult to convince me that the true motivation behind all of this hoopla was anything other than laying the foundation for a large-scale civil lawsuit (which now has come to fruition). The need for appellate vindication (or gubernatorial action), in my view, simply indicates a premeditated eye toward overcoming the burden of Heck v. Humphrey (no sec. 1983 cause of action arises based on wrongful arrest, prosecution or conviction absent acquittal, reversal of conviction or habeas relief invalidating conviction).

But, Richard, in her AP article Betsy Blaney states: "No drugs or money were found during the arrests." Were there truly no drugs ever transferred or does she mean just to point out that when actually arrested, none of the defendants were found to then be in possession of drugs or money. If it is the latter fact (if true) which is intended, that seems pretty irrelevant and the way the article is written quite misleading and confusing. Is the best way to repair a soiled image to tell another lie?

Coleman defends Tulia busts in "60 Minutes" segment

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Friday, September 26, 2003

Tom Coleman, who faces perjury charges related to his part in the racially-charged Tulia drug busts, says he's proud of what he did in the Panhandle town and that he's no racist, despite using an epithet "a lot."

The epithet is "common slang" and "a greeting," Coleman tells CBS's "60 Minutes" journalist Ed Bradley in Sunday's telecast.

But he tells Bradley, who is black, that he wouldn't use the slur with him. "Oh, no sir, not you," Coleman says on the show.

He goes on to say that it's OK to use the word around others, according to a news release from the show.

The interview, conducted at Coleman's home in Waxahachie this summer, has drawn the interest of the special prosecutor in a perjury case against Coleman. Rod Hobson said Friday he'll file a motion next week seeking a subpoena for the entire interview � not just what is aired � as possible evidence at Coleman's trial.

Coleman has done at least two other interviews, with an Amarillo television station and the BBC, but none since being charged.

Coleman, 44, and no longer in law enforcement, was indicted in April stemming from testimony he gave at post-trial hearings this spring. He worked alone and had no corroboration in his work as an undercover drug agent.

"I have no idea what's in the interview, but obviously if he's talking about the allegations against him, that's evidence in a criminal case," Hobson said.

Coleman's attorney, John H. Read II of Dallas, said he wouldn't have taken Coleman's case if he didn't believe he was innocent.

"He didn't do anything wrong," Read said. "He did nothing inappropriate and we'll prove that."

No date has been set for Coleman's trial.

In July 1999, 46 people � 39 of whom are black � were arrested. Authorities found no drugs or money during the arrests.

The arrests shined an international spotlight on the town of about 5,000 and led civil rights groups to claim it was racially motivated. Coleman is white.

Last month, Gov. Rick Perry pardoned 35 of the 38 who were prosecuted solely on Coleman's word. Coleman tells Bradley that corroborating evidence such as surveillance video or photographs "would have helped, but that's not how the operation went."

Coleman stands behind his work, despite a judge in court documents calling him "the most devious, non-responsive law enforcement witness this court has witnessed in 25 years."

"A lot of juries during the trial, they spoke their verdict and that was a lot of juries," Coleman says on the show. "I didn't intentionally target anyone in Tulia. It turned out that way. It's just where the road led me."

"The defendants know when it boils down to it ... they handed me the dope and I handed them the money."

He also discounts an alibi for one of those whose case was dismissed. Charges against Tonya White were dropped in April 2002 after she presented evidence that she couldn't have been in Tulia on Oct. 9, 1998, when Coleman claims to have bought drugs from her.

"It's not good enough (evidence) for me," Coleman tells Bradley. "All I know is that she was in Tulia selling me dope that day."

White counters Coleman's contention.

"That's not possible because I was at the bank in Oklahoma City at 9:45 withdrawing $8 and they got my signature on my withdrawal slip," she says on the show.

He tells Bradley the ordeal has been hard on him.

"Well, its took my career away from me, but I'm surviving," Coleman says. "It's been hard...but I'm proud of what I did in Tulia."

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas