Drug Informants Hold Key to Prosecution of Noriega

When Steven M. Kalish flew to Panama in 1983 in his Learjet to arrange to launder millions of dollars in drug-smuggling profits, he was instructed to bring a gift for Manuel A. Noriega that was big enough to show he was serious.

So when Kalish arrived at the Panamanian strongman’s home in Panama City, he carried a briefcase containing $300,000 in cash. As he was leaving after a 30-minute meeting, the general reminded Kalish that he had forgotten his briefcase.

“I told him that it was for him, and he smiled,” recalled Kalish.

The detailed allegation portrays Noriega just the way federal prosecutors want him--as a corrupt government leader who used his position to protect and promote drug smuggling in exchange for huge bribes.

The only problem is that the person telling the story is a smooth-talking drug smuggler who received a lenient sentence in return for information that led to the drug-related indictment pending against Noriega in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Fla.

The second federal drug case against Noriega, which is in a pretrial phase here in Miami, depends on the testimony of Floyd Carlton-Caceres, another admitted drug smuggler whose claims of a close relationship with Noriega also earned him leniency.

Indeed, without other strong evidence, whether Manuel Noriega is convicted of drug trafficking or walks out of court in Florida a free man may depend on whether juries believe Kalish or Carlton.

The full extent of the government’s evidence in both cases remains unknown even to defense attorneys. But court records and interviews show that the two indictments rely heavily on claims by the two convicted informants.

Extensive use of testimony by criminals with unsavory backgrounds and suspect credibility, often inevitable in drug cases, poses risks for the government and is certain to emerge as a key defense issue in both cases should they both go to trial.

“Mr. Carlton was facing multiple lifetimes in prison and, in exchange for an enormous reduction of his exposure, he made some claims about my client that we completely deny,” said Samuel I. Burstyn, an attorney for one of Noriega’s co-defendants in Miami. “We absolutely feel that his testimony was bought and paid for by the United States government.”

Kalish, 37, will face similar scrutiny in Tampa, said George D. Tragos, the attorney for Enrique A. Pretelt, a Panamanian jeweler who is Noriega’s co-defendant. “I don’t think they (prosecutors) have anything besides Kalish, and I don’t think he will be a credible witness,” said Tragos.

A criminal conviction or guilty plea in a deal with the government does not automatically render a witness untrustworthy. Prosecutors often point out that it takes a thief to catch a thief.

Credibility Problem

“Drug dealers are able to tell the truth and they are able to lie,” said Gerald Caplan, a criminal law professor at George Washington University in Washington. “It is simply a credibility problem. It depends upon the jury saying this guy is credible or not.”

The use of testimony resulting from plea bargains is viewed as unethical by some defense attorneys, who think it gives the government an unfair advantage and encourages perjury.

“The defense lawyer can’t go out and bribe a witness,” said Dick DeGuerin, a Houston attorney who represented Kalish in two cases in 1980 but later withdrew as his lawyer because Kalish agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. “As soon as you dangle that promise that instead of spending your life in jail you can do four or five years if you just tell us what we want to hear, most people say, ‘What do you want to hear?’ ”

Prosecutors have a pat strategy for trying to mitigate the damage when a convicted criminal testifies for them: They portray the witness as someone who has a criminal record but is still reliable. And they try to make sure the jury understands that the witness could be prosecuted for perjury or even lose his or her lenient treatment if he or she lies.

Defense lawyers have an equally routine tactic: They depict the witness as someone with a motive to lie as a result of a deal with the government. In the hands of a skilled defense attorney, the cross-examination of a government informant can devastate the prosecution case.

So bolstering the credibility of informant-witnesses with documentation and other testimony is usually essential to a successful prosecution. Often in drug cases, said Caplan, the seizure of actual drugs can swing the odds heavily in favor of the prosecution.

But the shipments of 1.4 million pounds of marijuana at the heart of the Tampa case never took place. Kalish was arrested before the planning was completed, but after he claimed to have paid off Noriega and others associated with the ousted Panamanian leader.

Lawyers familiar with both investigations say documents seized during the U.S. invasion of Panama last month may provide more evidence. For instance, U.S. investigators say they have found evidence that Noriega may have amassed a fortune of up to $300 million, of which only his small military salary could be considered legitimate income.

Corroborating the testimony of Kalish and Carlton is at the heart of the scramble in both Florida cases now, partly because the indictments languished for months and because the apprehension of Noriega caught prosecutors by surprise.

The outlines of the cases have been clear since the indictments were returned simultaneously in February, 1988. In addition, the stories of both key government witnesses were told in unusual detail before Senate panels in early 1988.

The trial in Miami appears likely to occur first, but some Justice Department officials and defense lawyers believe it is the weaker case because it is far broader.

Attorneys close to the cases have raised the possibility that the government will seek a new indictment that combines the charges in a single case.

The Miami indictment encompasses the very type of activities alleged in the Tampa charges. It accuses Noriega of exploiting his positions within the Panamanian military to allow drug traffickers to use the country as a transshipment point for drugs destined for the United States, providing safe haven for traffickers and allowing them to deposit millions of dollars in illegal profits in Panama’s banks, all in exchange for a cut of the money.

In the Miami case, it was cocaine traffickers from Colombia’s Medellin cartel who allegedly paid off Noriega. In the Tampa charges, it was Kalish and his accomplices in a Tampa-based marijuana operation.

Kalish’s credibility got its first test in a marijuana-smuggling trial in Lafayette, La., that ended earlier this month with decidedly mixed results for the prosecution.

Sixteen of 20 defendants were acquitted. Among those set free were the defendants whose only ties to the alleged conspiracy were in planning a single 1-million-pound marijuana shipment, dubbed the “Master Blaster,” that did not come off. The scheme, which allegedly involved Noriega’s approval, was aborted by Kalish’s arrest in July, 1984.

However, the four who were convicted were the most heavily implicated in Kalish’s testimony about two successful schemes. Two were longtime associates of Kalish, including a boat captain he had ransomed from Colombian drug dealers in 1983.

‘Excellent Witness’

“I thought he was an excellent witness,” said lawyer Patrick Michot, whose client was convicted. “I hate to give him the credit, but I don’t think there was anybody who didn’t think he was a good witness. He is a helluva witness.”

Samuel Buffone, the lawyer who negotiated the plea deal that resulted in a 10-year prison sentence for Kalish, believes that the Tampa case is winnable solely on the basis of his client’s testimony.

“I don’t think they need anybody other than Kalish,” he said. “You have to believe an informant in a drug trial.”

Carlton is untested so far, but the government clearly has high hopes for him.

A Panamanian-born pilot, he has cut a deal and is prepared to testify as the government’s star witness in the Miami trial.

He agreed in 1987 to plead guilty to transporting drugs into the United States on behalf of Colombian cocaine kingpins after being seized in a sting operation in Costa Rica. He is completing the mandatory one-third of a nine-year sentence and expects to be released soon into the federal witness protection program.

The 41-year-old former helicopter salesman has been described as a principal pilot in ferrying drugs for the Colombian gangsters--at Noriega’s request--from their country to Panama, and bringing bundles of cash--the illicit proceeds of the trade--from the United States to Noriega in Panama.

Federal court records, congressional testimony and persons familiar with Carlton’s activities picture him as a sometime-confidant of Noriega and the early contact between the former Panamanian strongman and the Medellin drug cartel.

“He’s a very sophisticated, highly intelligent guy,” says Reemberto Diaz, a Miami attorney who negotiated Carlton’s plea bargain with prosecutors in 1987. “I have talked with Floyd extensively and there is no doubt in my mind that he is very credible. He is a man of deep knowledge and deep feelings. I think he concluded that the drug business was a big mistake in his life.”

According to Carlton, the Colombians sought his help in arranging protection from Noriega in the early 1980s.

Senate Testimony

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international communications in 1988, Carlton described the haggling over the price of the protection.

Carlton said the Colombians proposed that he line up Panamanian airstrips where drugs could be safely brought in for transshipment to the United States. He said they offered to pay the person who approved the deal $20,000 or $30,000.

Noriega, upon hearing the deal, “laughed and told me that if these people thought he was begging, they were wrong,” Carlton said. He said Noriega said he would not take less than $100,000 for the first trip, and that he wanted to be paid in advance.

Carlton testified that Noriega received $100,000 for the first flight, $150,000 for the second and $200,000 for the third.

“Did you personally pay that money to him?” asked Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the subcommittee.

“Well, I would call him to tell him that I had his money and he would send his assistants to pick it up,” Carlton answered.

In the Tampa case, if it comes to trial, Kalish also will talk about what he claims was Noriega’s involvement in his plans to launder millions of dollars in Panama and ship drugs through the country.

As a high school student in a Houston suburb, Kalish used marijuana with friends and bought and sold it to finance his use. He dropped out of school but quickly graduated to big-league drug smuggling that made him rich.

Attorney DeGuerin, who describes Kalish as extremely intelligent and a “born leader,” represented Kalish when he was indicted twice in Galveston, Tex., on drug charges. He was acquitted once in 1980, but after his conviction on a charge in the second trial was affirmed by the Supreme Court, he fled to Florida under an assumed name rather than serve his four-year sentence.

In Tampa, he bought a fancy lakefront house, with a three-bay carport for his BMW, Chevrolet Blazer and red Ferrari. And he resumed drug smuggling.

In testimony in January, 1988, before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Kalish said the smuggling generated so much cash that it filled rooms. At one point the operation had $35 million on hand.

“We used money-counting machines, but had to stop counting because we could not keep up with the volume,” he said.

Kalish was planning to import a million pounds of marijuana that he expected would generate $300 million. He said he decided the money-laundering operation that the ring maintained in the Cayman Islands was too small for that kind of volume, so he took the advice of a friend and arranged a meeting in Panama.

Kalish said he traveled to Panama on Sept. 22, 1983, and met with jeweler Pretelt and Cesar Rodriguez, another businessman.

He said they claimed to represent Noriega and offered security for his money-laundering operation, including direct transfer of his cash via armored car from the military portion of the airport to banks.

Kalish claimed the two men arranged for his meeting with Noriega the following day at which he left behind the cash-stuffed briefcase. He also testified that he attended a party in Panama City that night at which Noriega thanked him for the briefcase.

According to Kalish, he paid nearly $1 million to Noriega and helped buy an executive helicopter and Boeing 727 jet for Noriega’s use. He also said that he received three Panamanian passports with Noriega’s assistance to disguise his travels. One, for which he said he paid $60,000, identified him as a Panamanian diplomat.

Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.), whose staff’s investigation led to the Senate testimony, felt the passports enhanced Kalish’s credibility as a witness.

“I expect that Panamanian officials will dismiss the testimony we will hear today as the fabrications of a narcotics trafficker out to save his own skin,” Roth said at the hearing. “If that is the case, if Mr. Kalish made all this up, then how did he come by several Panamanian passports, one of which bears diplomatic credentials?”

Prosecutors also have a note that Kalish said Noriega wrote to his wife welcoming her to Panama. FBI handwriting experts, however, have raised doubts about its authenticity, according to a source close to the case.

It is possible that Kalish’s testimony could be bolstered by another cooperating witness.

Although Rodriguez was murdered in Colombia in 1986, Pretelt, who was indicted with Noriega in Tampa in 1988, surrendered to the FBI in Panama earlier this month and was brought to Tampa, where he is being held without bail.

Justice Department officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, claim that Pretelt has agreed to testify in exchange for leniency. Tragos, his lawyer, denies that a deal has been struck.

“There is no deal,” he said emphatically in an interview this week. “My client turned himself in because he is a legitimate businessman who wants to get this behind him.”

Pretelt surrendered after eluding the FBI and U.S. Army following the Dec. 20 invasion. If he testifies against Noriega, some experts believe it would represent a new level of government pressure on informants.

“There is a little bit of a sense of taking it further than it has ever been taken before when you have the Army looking for people to bring back to testify against Noriega,” said Philip B. Heymann, a former assistant U.S. attorney general who teaches at Harvard Law School. “I have a strong feeling that, with so much pressure, a witness wouldn’t be too concerned with the facts of his testimony.”