Featured Post

DEA Agent in Jail for Drug Conspiracy

A former A.T.F. agent is in jail, awaiting prosecution for a fabricated drug buy.  Brandon McFadden was an agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for seven years before resigning last year.  He was arrested by the F.B.I. and is now in the Tulsa County Jail awaiting prosecution in U.S. District Court there.  McFadden pled guilty soon after he was arrested to participating in a drug conspiracy. McFadden is alleged to have coached a drug informant and fabricated a drug buy on May 8, 2007.   Not charged but implicated along with McFadden in the crime is Jeff Henderson, a Tulsa Police Officer.  Upon pleading guilty, McFadden named Henderson as a co-conspirator in the drug conspiracy, saying he and Henderson stole drugs and money and set up drug dealers to sell drugs on their behalf. The drug buy with the coached informant led to the conviction of Larita Annette Barnes and Larry Wayne Barnes of federal drug charges.  They were both released from federal prison last July because the informant, Ryan Logsdon, said he lied about the drug buy.   Larry Barnes had served about a year on a 5 ½ year sentence.  Larita Barnes had served about a year on two concurrent 10-year sentences. Jeff Henderson was put on paid leave from the Tulsa Police Department in April after the local newspaper published the report about the Barnes’s being released from prison.  He should be getting ready for prison because McFadden will do whatever he can to help the U.S. Attorney to convict him. Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris has ordered a review of the cases in which Henderson had been involved, which could number more than 100.   Harris announced in court that he could not release any information because there is an ongoing grand jury investigating matters, but Harris’s office acknowledged that it was contacted by Jane W. Duke, special prosecutor assigned to investigate corruption in law enforcement in Tulsa.  She is U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. This sort of thing does not come as a surprise to criminal defense lawyers.  Some people, however, believe uncritically in “law enforcement,” they will alibi without reason for these false-swearers.   Some people will continue to believe such “law reenforcement” types are the good guys, in spite of clear evidence they are the bad guys, law-breakers, perjurors, those who bear false witness and wrongfully put people in prison.  There are those who believe that just because someone wears a uniform, that someone can do no wrong.  That is a dangerous attitude, that someone can commit no wrong.  It is not the principle that drives our American system of justice, and that is why McFadden is being prosecuted.

Read More

Rescuers Turn Attackers

Posted by Edmond Geary on 08-02-2010

“Don’t taze my granny,” Lonnie Tinsley cried.  He was yelling at the police he had called to help his 86-year-old grandmother in his home in El Reno.  Actually, he had called for help for his grandmother, thinking medical personnel would arrive.  The police arrived.  But the police didn’t listen to him.  When the grandmother, Lona Vernon, ordered the police out of her home, they decided she was being aggressive-as she lay in her bed-and used their tasers on her.

Tinsley had called for help, expecting he would get help from medical technicians.  But he got the police who had their own agenda, a dozen of them.  Police used their tasers on Mrs.  Vernon because she had taken an aggressive posture lying in her hospital bed.  One taser wasn’t enough, however, so another police officer shot her.  But the tasers followed a special move that was based on “officer safety.”  Officer safety required stepping on Mrs. Vernon’s oxygen hose until she suffered oxygen deprivation.

Meanwhile, the police saw what they thought was obstructive behavior from the grandson, so the police took him from the room, threw him to the floor, handcuffed him, and took him out to a police car.

Aggressive hospital bed posture is not a crime familiar to most citizens, but when police need to excuse their excesses, they must get creative.  When they’re in a hurry, however, their creativity gets transparent.  Suffocating grandmothers in their beds is a little hard to sell, except to the hard-core “police-are-right-no-matter-what” crowd.  No facts will sway this crowd.  They will find some cover to excuse the police no matter, no matter, no matter what the police do.  To them, everything the police do that is ethically questionable or even illegal has some way to justify it.

The police finished up on Leona Vernon by handcuffing her, roughly, of course, and taking her away, proud, no doubt, of nipping the aggressive hospital bed behavior that so threatened the peace and dignity of the commonwealth.

Some people just cannot imagine the police would do anything illegal.  Some people cannot imagine the police would lie under oath.  They’re just doing their job, they posit, so why would commit perjury?  Do they ever get caught?  No, so there is no risk to their perjury.  Whey would they abuse a citizen?   Because some police officers think the citizen had it coming.  Police deal in the blame business every day.  That judgmental attitude can make an impact on some police officers, those who come to have contempt for those whom they believe are criminals.  For those police officers, the legal system is an obstacle to their brand of justice, an obstacle they can circumvent on a daily basis.

When a police officer testifies he observed a traffic violation or a driver moving excessively in the front seat on a car, what judge will doubt him?  The police officer knows that.  It is futile for an arrested party to dispute it.  Only when external evidence challenges the statement of the police officer can some doubt be raised, never when it is a police officer’s word against the accused.  When this goes on for long enough, the result is all the wrongly-accused prisoner’s on death row in Texas.   It took irrefutable DNA evidence after years and years of questioning to prove these people did not commit the crimes of which they were convicted. What those reversed convictions show, however, is an underlying question about the truth in which convictions in all criminal cases rest.

Comments are closed.