Tulia Drug Bust Evidence

[culture]

I have looked around and cannot find a clear answer this question:

Were the Tulia drug bust and subsequent convictions truly established based solely on the testimony of one law-enforcement officer? Was there actually zero physical evidence? Perhaps some had other evidence and some did not? If this is true (no corroborating testimony or evidence) this is pretty amazing. I would have a hard time sending someone to jail based solely on the testimony of one individual, with no other evidence, regardless of the character of the witness.

[pravnik]

The defendants (10 percent of Tulia's black community) were all convicted on the testimony of one officer, Tom Coleman, who presented few notes, and no wiretaps or recordings. According to AP reports, no drugs were ever found. Coleman now faces at least three indictments for aggravated perjury stemming from the incidents.

That may seem shocking, but juries really, really like to believe police officers, perhaps especially so in small town Texas.

Here's a couple of CNN articles: link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/15/tulia.suspects/index.html) and link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/16/tulia.hearing/index.html)

[Dogface]

In essence, the accused were convicted for the "crime" of being Black. In Texas, that's probably still a felony.

Just when I begin to feel sad about my own state, I remember that I can always rely on Texas, Florida, Mississippi, or one of the other Yayhoo States to remind me that there are far worse places to be.

[culture]

That the kind of "facts" we do not need. I guess the seven white defendents are also convicted because they were black? Being black in Texas is not a crime. Half my upper-class, suburban neighborhood in Texas is non-white, and I have never is 12 years heard a single complaint about being treated as a criminal for not being white.

I want to know the facts of the case.