By Chris Lane
By Jeff Balke
By Aaron Reiss
By Angelica Leicht
By Dianna Wray
By Aaron Reiss
By Camilo Smith
By Craig Malisow
But despite the happy faces at the firm's annual posh Yule gala, the year ended on a bit of a down note. In early December Mithoff's key witness in a high-profile case, the wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Houston and six former Houston cops involved in the killing of Pedro Oregon, pleaded guilty to aggravated perjury.
A few days later U.S. District Judge Simeon Lake dismissed the city from the lawsuit, thereby eliminating the only defendant capable of paying a potential big-money judgment to the Oregon family and Mithoff.
The Oregon saga began on July 12, 1998. Pedro Oregon, a 22-year-old father of two, died after being shot 12 times -- nine times in the back -- by police after Oregon allegedly brandished a gun during a botched drug raid at his southwest Houston apartment. The officers fired 33 times at Oregon, including 24 shots by one officer. A gun was found near Oregon's body, but no drugs were ever located.
The six officers -- patrolmen D.R. Barrera, James Willis, Pete Herrada, David Perkins, L.E. Tillery and Sergeant Darrell Strouse -- were fired by Police Chief C.O. Bradford. In his termination of the officers, Bradford cited multiple violations of department policy committed by the officers during the raid.
However, the only criminal charge returned by a Harris County grand jury was a misdemeanor count of trespassing against one officer -- Willis -- and even he was eventually acquitted (see "Dead, Dead, Dead," by Steve McVicker, May 6, 1999). After months of investigation, a federal grand jury indicted two officers on charges of violating Oregon's civil rights.
The two indictments were dismissed, however, when reports surfaced that Rogelio Oregon, Pedro's brother who was also in the apartment during the raid, had lied during his state grand jury testimony. On December 1 Rogelio pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated perjury, a charge that prosecutors say stemmed from Rogelio lying about his brother owning a gun and about his own relationship with a police informant who tipped police about the possibility of drugs in the apartment.
Judge Lake ruled that it had not been proved that the city has a practice of allowing or encouraging officers to conduct warrantless searches, such as the one carried out against Oregon. According to a police union attorney, Rogelio's guilty plea could increase the possibility that at least a couple of the fired officers might convince an independent arbitrator, who will hear the appeals of their dismissals, to give them back their HPD jobs.
The city "doesn't really have anything to say that Tillery did anything wrong except that he was there and was shot by friendly fire," says Bob Thomas, an attorney for the Houston Police Officers Association. "I think the arbitrator will put him back" on the force. "And I think Willis has a better than average chance of getting his job back because he was following the instructions of [Strouse], also."
Strouse has appealed his firing. Barrera and Herrada have not. Thomas believes Perkins may have been reinstated on the force if he had waited until now for a hearing. Thomas also admits he was shocked by Lake's decision to cut the city loose from the lawsuit.
"We thought Judge Lake's ruling was pretty stunning," says Thomas. "We didn't anticipate he would grant summary judgment for the city. I don't think anyone else did either, to be honest."
Especially not Mithoff, who is asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review Lake's ruling. Mithoff believes Lake's decision is inconsistent with the judge's own observations about the Houston Police Department's gang task force, and whether it has a pattern of cowboylike behavior like that displayed by the officers during the Oregon raid.
Indeed, in his own 80-page ruling, Lake writes that the evidence shows that 11 incidents resulted in 25 "warrantless arrests" by the task force. The judge says such raids without warrants "presumptively" violate the U.S. Constitution and that the city failed to show that the raids were legally sound. His ruling also says he is "not persuaded by the City's argument that the smell of burning narcotics provides officers both the probable cause and exigent circumstances need to justify warrantless entry and search of a private residence."
Lake concluded that Mithoff raised "a genuine issue of material fact" about whether the warrantless raids "represent a persistent, widespread practice" of gang task force officers "which is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy."
The judge, however, goes on to say that while the plaintiffs proved that the practice exists, they didn't establish that the city's policy makers knew about it.
"We think that the law is pretty clear," says Mithoff. "Once you establish the pattern and practice, it's not necessary to prove knowledge on the part of the policy makers."