THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 11, 1996 TAG: 9601110001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
The decision by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson to dismiss drug conspiracy and money-laundering charges against two alleged gang members last month raises troubling questions.
While it means a judge is willing to demand answers from prosecutors when things don't look right to him, it also may mean that suspected crack dealers will soon be back on the street.
Judge Jackson dropped crack-cocaine charges against Anthony L. Olvis and Angela D. Palmer, claiming that federal prosecutors' failure to provide the court with specific information made it impossible to tell whether the defendants were unfairly prosecuted because they were black.
Prosecutors agreed to provide the judge with grand-jury material to examine for racial bias, but declined to answer questions submitted by defense lawyers about specific decisions to prosecute some and grant immunity to others.
Prosecutors say they must protect the identity of those who help them make their cases. They also argue that the judge is trying to impose what amount to racial quotas, demanding prosecution of equal numbers of blacks and whites for crack crimes.
In fact, there's another side to this story contained in the judge's written opinion: ``Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not `unfettered.' Selectivity in enforcement of criminal laws is . . . subject to constitutional constraints.''
Selective prosecution occurs when someone is prosecuted because of who he is rather than on evidence alone. That's prohibited by the Constitution, which requires equal treatment of all under the law.
In the Olvis and Palmer cases, Jackson noticed that one of the people granted immunity from charges acted as a driver for a key player in the alleged drug conspiracy. Another person given a break admitted he sold crack and participated in two drive-by shootings. Both people were white. Yet blacks with less involvement were indicted.
Maybe there's an explanation for the prosecution's granting immunity to the whites. Maybe the whites cooperated with the government and the blacks didn't. But the unwillingness of prosecutors to clarify the situation raises a doubt.
Jackson isn't the only judge worried that blacks involved in drug gangs may not be treated like their white counterparts. On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a California case alleging selective prosecution based on race.
Judge Jackson seemingly wants only an explanation. Federal prosecutors insist they've taken a less than cooperative stand on principle to protect future cases. But if they have race-neutral answers, why not provide them and move on?
There's public enthusiasm for zealous pursuit of crime and criminals, but victories shouldn't come at the expense of constitutional protections we all rely on. And those who enforce the law must live by the law. by CNB