Deputies’ Role Leads to Dismissal of Drug Case

In fallout from a probe of alleged money-skimming by Sheriff’s Department deputies, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed drug trafficking charges Tuesday against three men, and a prosecutor acknowledged that other narcotics cases may be in jeopardy.

Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan dismissed the case against three men allegedly caught with 10 kilograms of cocaine because the Sheriff’s Department refused to provide documents about its investigation of five suspended narcotics officers who are key witnesses in the case.

County prosecutors said several of their cases are now threatened by the ongoing investigation into the alleged thefts of drug money by a nine-member sheriff’s narcotics squad.

Robert Schirn, head of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s major narcotics division, said testimony of the suspended officers is “critical” in at least two other pending cases and could be needed in as many as 10 more cases. He was unable to provide details of most of the cases.

Tuesday was the first time a county prosecution had been lost because it hinged on testimony by the deputies, who were suspended Sept. 1. Federal prosecutors also recently abandoned a drug distribution case involving a 700-pound seizure of cocaine for the same reason.

Tynan dismissed counts of cocaine possession for sale against Jose David Fierro, Luis Berdiel and Victor Moreno, who were allegedly found transferring cocaine from a Los Angeles apartment to a car.

As the defendants began to celebrate, Tynan yelled from the bench: “Hey, scumbags, get out of my courtroom. You’re all guilty.”

Though the charges may be refiled any time until 1992, they are based on observations by Deputies James R. Bauder, Eufrasio G. Cortez, Terrell H. Amers, Ronald E. Daub and Michael J. Kaliterna. The prosecution declined comment on the likelihood of future prosecution. But defense attorneys maintained that any future prosecution depends on whether any of the deputies are cleared by local and federal money-skimming investigations.

No charges have been filed against the five deputies in this case or the other suspended officers--Deputies Nancy A. Brown, John C. Dickenson and Daniel M. Garner and Sgt. Robert R. Sobel.

Defense lawyers had planned to challenge the credibility of the five deputies during Tuesday’s hearing, but the case never got that far.

Tynan dismissed it after the Sheriff’s Department refused to produce documents about its investigation of Bauder, and, as a result, the judge would not allow the deputy to testify. Only Bauder testified at a preliminary hearing, and Deputy Dist. Atty. Paul Sergojan said he was unable to prosecute the case without him as a witness.

The other deputies might have testified in Bauder’s place, but since the Sheriff’s Department refused to provide information about any of the suspended officers, prosecutors said they were unable to proceed.

‘More Important’

“While I am extremely reluctant to see accused drug dealers escape justice, to comply with Judge Tynan’s order would jeopardize an even more important investigation,” Sheriff Sherman Block said in a prepared statement.

David E. Wood, attorney for Fierro, said that even if Tynan had denied his motion for sheriff’s documents, prosecutors could not have made a case.

Attorneys for all of the officers except Bauder had said their clients would not testify, Wood said. Lawyers for Amers and Cortez filed declarations with the court, arguing that the officers have a constitutional right not to testify if it might incriminate them.

Bauder, casually dressed and chatting with the other four deputies, remarked before the hearing: “I’m not going to testify. I didn’t even bring an attorney. I don’t need an attorney to tell me not to testify.”

Amers’ lawyer, Paul R. Depasquale, said that he regretted having to advise his client not to testify. “It’s unfortunate,” he said, but he did not want Amers in a position where his testimony might hurt his own defense.

Overriding Issue

He also denied that the officers’ character was the overriding issue in the case. “This is still America, and (the officers) have not been charged with a crime,” he said.

But Wood said the deputies’ credibility and the inability of defense attorneys to review sheriff’s documents are both enormous obstacles for prosecutors.

“I don’t see how they can go forward with any cases” in which some of the nine suspended officers are the only witnesses, as in this case, Wood said.

Drug arrests are often carried out by more than one police agency, and prosecutor Schirn said he is hoping to salvage some cases in which the deputies are involved by calling other officers as witnesses.

Schirn said his office will continue to pursue the cases “until information is brought to us (demonstrating) that we cannot proceed.”

“There is a concern that we may see more of these attempts (to dismiss cases) because it appears that the sheriff is not going to comply with discovery (motions),” Schirn said.

Sgt. Mike Messina, a narcotics officer for the Brea Police Department, said he had received telephone calls from prosecutors indicating that “the district attorney’s office is trying to save some of these cases” by using Brea officers as witnesses. Brea has assisted the suspended squad on numerous recent cases, he said.