Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Win at all costs - Changing his story to fit the case

Web Extras: Marketplace, Bridal, Headlines by Email, Postcards

Changing his story to fit the case

November 29, 1998
By Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

At his sentencing in 1993, Ronald Whitley told a federal judge he’d been a bit player in the major Kansas City cocaine ring that Anthony Salem Rashid operated. Whitley argued that he didn’t deserve the minimum 20-year sentences other defendants faced.

He was illiterate and had done nothing more than help Rashid count money a few times and maintain Rashid’s many homes, Whitley and his lawyer said.

The judge believed him. For pleading guilty, Whitley got a 10-year sentence.

Two years later, the trials of four other defendants charged in the same drug conspiracy got under way, and Whitley offered to testify in exchange for another cut in his sentence. Prosecutors agreed.

Whitley took the stand and told jurors he’d been a top lieutenant in the ring. He convincingly told a jury that he and others had transported large caches of drugs from Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles to Kansas City, Mo.

His testimony directly contradicted what he’d told a judge two years before, but prosecutors didn’t mention that to defense attorneys, who wouldn’t learn of Whitley’s plea bargain statements until two years after their defendants were convicted. Nor did prosecutors reveal Whitley’s extensive criminal record, which included an arrest for murder.

The other key witness in the trial was Rashid. When he was arrested in Los Angeles, he had 76 kilograms of cocaine in his possession, but prosecutors agreed to cut the 30-year sentence he faced to 10 years if he’d testify against dealers who worked for him. Based largely on the testimony of Whitley and Rashid, four men received sentences as long as life in prison.

One of them was Harold Jones, who seemed an unlikely drug runner. Jones worked two jobs, had few assets, was deeply in debt because of credit cards and insisted he was being made the fall guy so that Whitley and Rashid could win leniency.

For his "truthful" testimony and substantial help in the trial, Whitley was set free. His 10-year sentence was reduced to time served.

Rashid did even better. His original charges would have put him in prison for 30 years to life. For testifying against Jones, whom he described as a man who purchased drugs from him over the years, the government shortened his sentence to 10 years.

Then, as if by magic, it was reduced to five. While testifying against Jones and the others, Rashid said he’d been promised a second reduction in his now 10-year sentence. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Miller assured the court and jurors that the government’s deal with Rashid was fulfilled. He said if Rashid filed motions for a second sentence reduction, the government would argue vehemently against it. Despite his cooperation, Rashid still qualified as a kingpin of the drug network, Miller said.

After the defendants were convicted, Rashid filed a motion asking the judge to force the government to fulfill its promises of a second sentence reduction. Despite Miller’s earlier protests in court, he didn’t contest Rashid’s motion. Rashid won and has since gone free.

Jones, on the other hand, is serving a 23-year prison sentence, based largely on the testimony of Whitley, who perjured himself, and Rashid, who bought 25 years off his sentence by telling prosecutors what they wanted to hear.

Jones and the other defendants didn’t find out about Whitley’s transformation from gopher to key lieutenant until defense lawyers were successful in getting a judge to unseal Whitley’s sentencing hearing transcript.

In March, all of the defendants asked an appeals court to reverse their convictions based on Whitley’s perjured statements and the government’s failure to turn over evidence that would have allowed defense lawyers to impeach Whitley as a witness. They also said the government did not fulfill its obligation to correct false testimony after it occurred.

The district court judge had agreed that "some preposterous things have happened in this case" but turned down their appeals based on the "harmless error" doctrine, which means the judge decided that if the truth about Whitley were known, the verdict would not have been different.

The defendants’ appeal to the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals argues the government knowingly presented false testimony to a jury and failed to disclose discovery materials to defendants prior to trial.

The court recently ruled against them on all substantive matters.