Cooperation in Naming Suppliers Weighed by Judges : Drug Offenders Asked to ‘Just Say Who’

Nancy Reagan urged kids to “just say no” to drugs, and national drug policy chief William J. Bennett said it’s OK to “just say who” is using. Now judges want drug offenders to name their suppliers.

A month after judges in Knox and Anderson counties began asking it, they say the question is worthwhile. But defense attorneys and even the Knox County sheriff wonder whether it violates protections against self-incrimination, ends judges’ neutrality, puts defendants at risk and threatens other cases.

“It seems to me there’s everything to gain and nothing to lose, assuming I’m not trampling on their constitutional rights,” said Knox County Criminal Court Judge Randy Nichols, who figures most of his criminal cases boil down to drug use.

Modeled on Nebraska Program

Criminal court judges in the two counties on May 5 began asking people convicted of possession or sale of drugs to name their suppliers in a program modeled after one in Columbus, Neb. The judges consider defendants’ cooperation in deciding plea bargains, and refusal could earn a contempt of court charge, punishable by up to 10 days in jail and a $50 fine.

In Columbus, Platte County Juvenile Court Judge Gerald Rouse says more than 40 other jurisdictions have called for information on the county’s year-old policy requiring offenders to name suppliers of drugs or alcohol.

“Frankly, we don’t have to do it very often. Once the word got around and the first two went to jail, we didn’t have much of a problem,” Rouse said.

The policy has led to only a half-dozen supplier convictions, he said.

In Tennessee, if a supplier’s name surfaces, it’s up to a prosecutor to take it down and decide whether to investigate further, Nichols said. So far only a handful of cases have evoked the question.

Sought Probation

When James Daugherty of Oak Ridge sought probation on a charge of selling cocaine, Anderson County Criminal Court Judge James Scott asked it.

Daugherty named “Crazy Joe” as his supplier. “Crazy Joe” Newton, it turned out, had been found dead earlier in the year.

Scott gave Daugherty four years in prison, not because of his answer but rather his background. Daugherty may have been telling the truth, Scott said, but he notes the convenience and wonders whether there will be an onslaught of “phantom sellers.”

Nichols asked the question May 17 of Jeffrey Clark Evans, who agreed to plead guilty to robbery, assault and marijuana charges in exchange for a 17-year sentence. Defense attorney Bob Simpson objected and told his client not to answer because the judge was no longer neutral. Simpson also said the question violated his client’s Fifth Amendment right because police could go to the supplier, who in turn could implicate Evans on unrelated crimes.

Nichols took no action and scheduled another hearing on the case.

Policy May Be Killed

Other defense attorneys, including Bob Ritchie of Knoxville, believe appeals courts may kill the policy.

“For 200 years we have administered criminal justice by the investigative method,” Ritchie said. “To require a person to give evidence of any kind is an inquisitorial method of criminal justice. That is abhorrent to the basic foundations of freedom on which this country is founded.”

Nichols said conviction means loss of Fifth Amendment rights, and that the judges aren’t interested in further charging that person. “If he tells me Joe Jones sold it and another week someone else tells us Joe Jones sold it, that’ll be useful information for the attorney general,” he said.