Sex, Lies, Drugs, Shame: Major Gang Prosecution Unravels in Chicago : Justice: Disclosures have turned a successful effort into a major embarrassment for the federal government. A six-year probe that led to 53 convictions is in jeopardy.

Two former henchmen in the city’s most notorious gang are seen snorting heroin. Both are prison inmates at the time--and government witnesses.

Another ex-gang leader testifies he had sex with his wife about five times while in federal custody--and in government offices.

These startling disclosures of sex and drugs involving the El Rukns street gang have turned one of the most successful criminal prosecutions ever in Chicago into one of the biggest embarrassments--and biggest potential scandals--for the federal government.

A six-year probe of the drug-dealing gang that led to 53 convictions or guilty pleas is unraveling. Two federal judges in June ordered new trials for six El Rukns or associates, saying the U.S. attorney’s office and others concealed evidence that gang members took drugs, had sex and were given special favors while government witnesses. A third judge is hearing similar charges and more convictions are likely to be challenged.

“They were on a mission to clean up the El Rukns. Anything justified the ends,” defense lawyer Richard Kling said of the government. “It was, ‘We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys, we can do whatever we need to do in order to get them.’ ”

“They also argued they put them behind bars and stopped their criminality. But they didn’t, did they?” asked Peter Schmiedel, another lawyer whose client won a retrial. “It’s one thing to admit to a life of crime on the street; it’s another thing to admit to crimes . . . while in custody and the government allowing it to occur.”

Schmiedel argues the accused were denied a fair trial because defense attorneys didn’t know--and couldn’t tell jurors--about witnesses’ illicit behavior.

“This evidence . . . not only tainted witnesses, it tainted the whole government strategy, it tainted the whole case,” Schmiedel said.

The U.S. attorney’s office has not said whether it will appeal or seek new trials. But in court papers filed in late July, prosecutors said claims that gang members were having sex and taking drugs are “terminally inconsistent and inherently implausible.”

The charges, however, are being investigated by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The case is being handled by John Smietanka, U.S. attorney in Western Michigan, who said in a June statement:

“Even when the government prosecutes the most serious criminal behavior, it must do so with vigor restrained by fairness and wisdom ruling emotions. Judgment on the El Rukn prosecutions, like any other case, will be made on whether or not the government met that test.”

Both judges said in written rulings that they believed William Hogan, the top El Rukn prosecutor, was aware of drug use by his witnesses.

But Hogan’s attorney, Shelly Kulwin, insists his client did nothing wrong and contends the government has failed to introduce evidence that would vindicate him.

“He worked 18-hour days for four years, doing the right thing,” Kulwin said. “Could he cover every little thing that happened? Was he there every minute of the day? . . . No. Was there a possibility on one occasion that an agent screwed up, a secretary screwed up, something occurred? Yes. Did it involve drugs or sex? No.”

The El Rukn convictions were touted as the final chapter in the 25-year history of a nefarious gang that amassed a multimillion-dollar empire of murder, muscle and drugs.

Using racketeering laws and gang members turned informants, prosecutors decimated the organization, only to face troubling questions about their methods.

Among the findings of U.S. district judges James Holderman and Suzanne Conlon, both of whom are ex-federal prosecutors:

* Two key El Rukns, Henry Leon Harris and Harry Evans, used drugs while imprisoned as government witnesses. Both tested positive for morphine in 1989 and were not given additional urinalysis tests.

A former prosecutor said he told Hogan of the positive results. Several witnesses testified they told him El Rukn informants were taking drugs.

Hogan says he doesn’t recall any conversation about positive tests and denies knowledge of witnesses using drugs.

* El Rukn witnesses had contact visits with girlfriends, wives and others. Some testified in post-trial hearings they had sex in government offices while guarded by agents of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office or Chicago police.

Female visitors weren’t searched unless a female ATF agent was present. Evans’ mother allegedly smuggled drugs to her son in food she carried in plastic bags.

A former suburban police chief, convicted in an unrelated case and housed on the same floor as El Rukns, said he saw several gang member-informants using drugs and having sex with visitors. He said he reported this to guards and called Hogan.

The government didn’t dispute his credibility, but Kulwin challenges his testimony as well as others.

“The con men have every motive to discredit Mr. Hogan,” he said. “Let’s not forget who they are. Criminals. Murderers. Gangsters. If you’re going to really believe them, you’ve got a serious problem.”

* El Rukn cooperating witnesses had free access to the U.S. attorney’s phones and free call-forwarding services while incarcerated.

Holderman suggested some gang witnesses used their telephone privileges to contact drug suppliers at taxpayer expense.

In post-trial hearings, prosecutors disclosed a 2-year-old memo in which ATF agents expressed security concerns and said El Rukn witnesses sometimes answered phones, “ATF.”

* The government provided gang witnesses clothing, gifts, a camera and headset radios, some at government expense. One El Rukn witness told the FBI that agents guarding him occasionally left him beer in government offices.

* A paralegal for the prosecutors had sexually explicit conversations with an El Rukn witness and smuggled in laxatives that may have been used after informants allegedly swallowed drug-filled condoms or balloons.

Even after the paralegal’s conduct became known to prosecutors, she received two merit salary increases.

“The informant system is out of control,” said Al Alschuler, a University of Chicago law professor. “The courts generally give less scrutiny to the actions of the prosecution than they do the actions of police officers. Prosecutors are members of the same profession.”

John Beal, a former Justice Department lawyer now in private practice in Chicago, said this case illustrates what can happen when government lawyers gain too much authority.

“Attitudes have developed in federal prosecutors’ offices that, ‘We run the show, we make the rules,’ ” he said. “This, to me, infected the El Rukns cases . . . giving the prosecution almost complete control of the process and letting them forget they have to follow the rules.”

But Kulwin said Hogan abided by the law and the convictions should be upheld.

“A lot of the allegations are inaccurate and just false,” he said. “I know it’s hard to believe that with the screaming headlines. But it won’t be the first time they’re wrong.”

Defense attorney Kling disagreed.

“It will be years before this is over with. It’s not a tricky defense lawyer that caused it. If anybody walks in this case, if any bad people get out, it falls solely in the laps of the U.S. attorney.”