Drug Acquittals Force Prosecutors to Regroup : Corruption: Two more trials are planned in the inquiry of narcotics officers. But authorities are faced with questions about the reliability of witnesses and whether to refile charges.

In the last few months, the corruption probe called Operation Big Spender gained a burst of momentum when two former Los Angeles County sheriff’s narcotics officers pleaded guilty to money-skimming charges and agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors.

With their help, the 3 1/2-year-old investigation widened--and the two officers joined several others in the government’s small but expanding battery of informants.

As they looked ahead to the trial, there was reason for increased optimism among prosecutors and investigators.

Until last week.

After deliberating for 17 days, a federal jury acquitted six local narcotics officers on 14 counts of civil rights and money-skimming violations and deadlocked on 13 counts before a mistrial was declared.

The verdicts marked the first time any narcotics officer has been acquitted in the scandal--and the jurors said they did not believe a former sheriff’s sergeant who has served as the government’s chief witness in the first two money-skimming trials.

“Everyone was reeling,” said one source close to the investigation.

“The first reaction was: ‘What went wrong?’ ” said another who also spoke on condition of anonymity. “And the second was: ‘Where do we go from here?’ ”

Starting Tuesday, two more deputies are scheduled for trial in federal court on money-skimming charges. Three more former narcotics officers are expected to face trial on similar charges this year and sources say that additional indictments are expected.

But in the aftermath of last week’s setback, prosecutors are faced with new uncertainties.

The first question is whether the government should refile the unresolved counts against the five sheriff’s deputies and one Los Angeles police officer who were acquitted on the other charges.

Beyond that, there are questions about whether the government should continue to rely heavily on ex-Sheriff’s Sgt. Robert Sobel, who has testified repeatedly against his former subordinates on elite anti-drug teams.

If not, prosecutors must decide whether the new informants can provide credible testimony that will help win convictions.

In winning seven convictions in the first money-skimming trial a year ago, prosecutors relied not only on Sobel but also on a videotape of an FBI sting and evidence that the deputies had spent tens of thousands in cash for cars, boats and homes.

In the most recent trial, prosecutions depended heavily on the testimony of Sobel and a number of drug dealers, whom jurors later said were not credible.

The jury came close to a guilty verdict on only a handful of counts against the officers, who were accused of skimming money, beating drug dealers and planting narcotics on suspects.

Attorney Harland Braun said he happened to be present when news of the verdicts reached government lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office.

“They were in a state of shock,” said Braun, who represented a defendant in the earlier trial. “They said: ‘We expected a conviction.’ ”

The outcome cheered not only the defendants but other suspended deputies who remain the targets of the corruption investigation.

“It certainly lifted our spirits,” said one former narcotics officer who has been waiting more than two years to see if the government will indict him. “I’m happy for the guys, but they aren’t out of the woods yet, and neither are we.”

Prosecutors said they have not decided whether to refile the counts against Los Angeles Police Detective Stephen W. Polak and Deputies John L. Edner, Roger R. Garcia, Edward D. Jamison, J.C. Miller and Robert S. Tolmaire.

“This was a very complicated and lengthy trial,” acting U.S. Atty. Terree A. Bowers said in a written statement, adding that her office “will re-examine the case and determine if the remaining 13 counts . . . will be retried.”

The decision is expected by March 23, when a court hearing is scheduled before U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi.

One of the former defendants, Jamison, said he would not be surprised if the government retries him and the others. “‘I’m tired, but you know I’m never going to give up because I haven’t done anything wrong,” he said. “The feds can shout it as long and as loud as they want, but I didn’t do anything wrong.”

One juror had some advice for prosecutors. “I told them: ‘If you’re going to try this again, you better dig up some good witnesses,’ ” said juror Bob Roth.

Roth said he and other jurors were skeptical of the government’s witnesses, including several drug dealers who said they were beaten and framed by the officers.

“If we could have turned right around and convicted (the dealers) on things, that would have been no problem at all,” Roth said.

During their testimony, several dealers described how they made hundreds of thousands of dollars selling drugs and were hoping that their cooperation would lead to reduced prison sentences. One imprisoned dealer--Ricky Donnell Ross--also testified that he still owned some of the property he had bought with drug profits and that the government had not moved to seize that real estate.

“I think the government gave away the farm on that,” Roth said. “That was aggravating as all get-out.”

Although some jurors were troubled by the reliance on drug dealers, many were also critical of Sobel, who testified longer than any witness and implicated his former subordinates.

“I just didn’t believe him,” said juror Felice DeRosa of Garden Grove. “I tried, but I just didn’t find him credible.”

Sobel’s attorney, Mark Beck, said he had spoken to his client about the jurors’ criticism but declined to describe Sobel’s reaction.

“I’m confident that through the course of the next several trials with the help of additional corroborations, the view of (future) juries will be different,” Beck said.

Precisely what role Sobel will play in those trials is unclear.

In the money-skimming trial this week, Sobel is expected to be only a peripheral witness against two deputies--Robert Juarez and Tyrone Powe--accused of drug money thefts.

Two other ex-deputies--Virgil Bartlett and Eufrasio G. Cortez--have pleaded guilty in the case and are expected to testify. Another ex-deputy, Daniel M. Garner, has also pleaded guilty but is not cooperating with the government.

Garner’s wife, Yhvona, also is a defendant in the trial. She faces money laundering and income tax charges.