Star Witness In Trial Of 11 Miami Cops Unimpressive

name

February 1, 2003

But experts say it is too early to tell what the outcome will be of case expected to last five months.

The ex-Miami cop was billed as a star witness.

Federal prosecutors hoped William Hames would provide a fast start in their high-profile conspiracy case against 11 Miami police officers accused of conspiring to cover up four questionable shootings.

But Hames, who received a lenient plea deal in exchange for his insider testimony turned in less than a convincing performance last week as he broke the police "code of silence."

Under oath, he said he never saw the defendants' plant "throw-down" guns after killing two fleeing unarmed robbers in 1995. Or even heard them discuss such a plot.

He testified it was he — not the cops on trial — who made up the story of the robbers carrying guns to help justify the shootings to investigators.

Hames, who took part in the shootings, gave prosecutors access to the inside world of an elite team of aggressive undercover cops, but his testimony came with inherent risks.

He turned out to be a coconspirator who gave prosecutors just enough to satisfy his plea agreement, but not enough to prove conspiracy in the two shooting deaths near the Interstate 395 overpass in Overtown, say several legal experts who are following the major corruption case.

"The government prosecutors are such true believers in this guy," said Edward O'Donnell Jr., a longtime criminal defense attorney who is not involved in the case.

"They think [Hames is] on their side. He's on his side," he said. "If there's any allegiance, it's to the other guys [on trial]. He'll take every opportunity he can, without screwing up his plea agreement, to help those guys."

Despite that blunt assessment, O'Donnell and other experts say it's premature to draw conclusions about the outcome of this complex case from Hames' testimony alone. The trial, which kicked off Jan. 21 with opening statements, is expected to last five months.

'FAR TOO EARLY'

"The only real thing Hames has achieved is that he's painted himself as a criminal," said University of Miami law professor Donald Jones. "As long as this is the only shoe to fall, the prosecution can still handle its business. It's far too early to tell whether the government is going to be hurt overall by Hames' testimony."

While Hames' testimony might appear to give early momentum to the defense, prosecutors plan to put on another ex-cop and co-conspirator on the witness stand. John Mervolion is expected to provide more insider testimony later in the trial about the 1-395 case and another police shooting.

Moreover, prosecutors appear to have compelling forensic evidence. For instance, the alleged throw-down guns recovered at the I-395 scene did not appear to have been fired and had no victims' fingerprints on them.

Perhaps there were such great expectations about Hames' testimony because the prosecution team, assistant U.S. attorneys Allan Kaiser and Curtis Miner, gave jurors that impression when the obstruction of justice trial started last month.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the case you are going to hear is about cops who went too far," Miner said during opening statements. "It's going to be abbot cops who crossed over the line between doing what was right and doing what was wrong."

'JUMP-OUT BOYS'

Miner then spoke about Hames and Mervolion, who worked with the team of officers in the Crime Suppression Units. On the street, some were known as the "Jump-Out Boys."

"They are two officers who have pleaded guilty," the prosecutor said. "They will come in here and tell you that ... the story they made about the I-395 shooting was a lie ... They will tell you that the guns that were found there were planted there."

But when Hames took the witness stand last week, his testimony failed to paint that picture clearly for jurors. Hames testified none of the officers ever said anything directly about planting guns or staging a coverup. He indicated it was an unspoken pact.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Richard Sharpstein asked Hames: "No one ever told you they planted a gun?"

"Correct," Hames said.

NEARLY IDENTICAL

Hames ' testimony was nearly identical to what he told Miami-Dade and federal investigators in August 2001, just before agreeing to plead guilty to one count of conspiring to obstruct justice.

The conviction carries a prison sentence up to five years; Hames' continued cooperation could earn him probation.

He also has received immunity for his testimony, so he cannot be further prosecuted.

Several criminal defense attorneys with experience in police corruption trials —including the sensational drug and-murder prosecutions of the Miami River Cops in the 1980s — say such cases are always difficult because they involve officers with plea deals testifying against police defendants.

For example, in 1980, the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office lost a racially charged case against four county cops charged with the beating death of black insurance agent Arthur McDuffie and tampering with evidence.

The all-white Tampa jury acquitted the officers partly because two county cops involved in the incident were given immunity to testify against them.

Almost a decade later, Mervolion testified against his fellow officer, William Lozano, who was convicted of killing a black motorcyclist and his passenger. Lozano, granted a new trial on appeal, was later acquitted.

In 1994, several police officers testifying in a conspiracy trial stemming from the fatal beating of drug dealer Leonardo Mercado changed their recollections of what happened immediately after the incident. Two complained of memory lapses, while the others changed earlier statements made to investigators.

The jury came back with a split verdict -- finding four Miami officers guilty of obstructing justice, but not guilty of conspiracy and perjury.

Jurors also acquitted two other cops of aiding a cover-up. One of them was Jesus "Jesse" Aguero, one of the 11 defendants in the government's current conspiracy trial.

In that case, Hames is viewed by many as a deeply flawed witness. He has not only lied to his superiors, but his alcoholic history ended his 26-year career on the Miami police force.

Weeks after the I-395 shootings, an inebriated Hames discharged his gun in front of co-workers after a prostitution sting.

Then in 1998, while drunk off duty, Hames put a gun to the head of a bus driver during a road-rage incident. Soon afterward he retired, saying he didn't even remember it.

Since cutting his plea deal, Hames violated a condition of his bond by testing positive for marijuana during a routine drug test.

'BETRAYAL OF TRUST'

"The fall that he took ruins his credibility," said attorney Samuel Burstyn, who defended three officers in the Miami River Cops case. "The government can never trust him to be a cop, so why should a jury? The magnitude of his betrayal of trust is so much greater than that of an average person, there is no way to rehabilitate him."

Douglas Hartman, a lawyer for the Miami-Dade County Police Benevolent Association, characterized Hames as the worst possible witness.

"His background is so horrible," Hartman said." The only thing I can think is the government is desperate to make a case, and when you're desperate you bring in people like Hames."

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys cannot comment because of a gag order imposed by presiding U.S. District Judge Alan Gold.

Hames' attorney, a former Miami federal prosecutor, said his client provides value to the government's conspiracy case because he has insider knowledge of how the 11 defendants operated together.

"A prosecutor can't make his conspiracy case without getting someone inside the conspiracy in the first place," said attorney Myles Malman.

'UNDER STRESS'

"It's a lot more difficult for a cop to turn against his fellow cop because he's under a lot of stress," he said. "I think he was candid and forthright."

But Hames' lack of credibility, other attorneys say, could linger with the 12 jurors for weeks.

"When the government prosecutes a case, it is in its interest to color all of the proceedings from the outset so the jury is pretty much leaning toward conviction right away," Burstyn said. "Every moment you allow a jury to feel doubt, it creates doubt equity for the defense over the course of the trial."