That drug investigation. And he will answer critics who claim Collins and
Ortega grandstanded for political gain. Before we get to that discussion
though, we have this background report.
It was the beginning of a nightmare for the
pretty nice. Yeah, it's open to the public. I'll tell you. Ok,
what is that?
Good evening? Welcome to Horizon. I'm Michael Grant. It's been about eight
weeks since voters in Maricopa County defeated funding for the Rio Salado
project. But now one city in the valley has plans to resurrect Rio Salado
, but on a much smaller scale in a few minutes, we'll talk with Tempe
mayor Harry Mitchell to find out about his city's version of the Rio
Salado. But first, last spring, the sports world was shocked to learn that
the Phoenix Suns squeaky Clean Organization was tarnished by alleged links
to drugs and gambling. Several current and former sons players were
indicted and one popular son who had been treated for drugs earlier
testified against his teammates before a grand jury. That news made
headlines leading the investigation. Maricopa County attorney, Tom Collins
and Phoenix police chief Ruben Ortega. Both men were not allowed to talk
to the press after a judge issued a gag order on the case. But now eight
months later, county attorney, Tom Collins is ready to discuss what went
right and possibly what went wrong with the drug investigation. And he
will answer critics who claim Collins and Ortega grandstanded for
political gain. Before we get to that discussion though, we have this
background report.
It was the beginning of a nightmare for the Phoenix Suns. Back in April,
the National basketball association confirmed the sons were suspected of
major drug and gambling links. It was then described as the worst drug
scandal to hit an NBA team. A grand jury was convened by Maricopa County
attorney, Tom Collins and in May. Collins and Phoenix police chief Ruben
Ortega announced grand jury indictments of 13 persons in the Phoenix Suns
drug probe including several current and former sons, players. Reporters
asked for a copy of the police report on the investigation. Ortega at
first said he did not have it. He then said Collins had it and neither
would turn it over to the press after the media sued and got a copy of the
report. Collins and Ortega were lambasted. The report revealed that the
police at best had compiled rather weak cases of individual drug abuse and
at worst, prosecutors had lied to the grand jury to support Ortega's and
Collins claims of having uncovered a major drug and gambling ring by
September, all of the grand jury's charges against current and former Sons
players had been dropped. Criticism of the Sons investigation was summed
up by an editorial in the Phoenix gazette. The editorial said it was a
prosecution unjustified by police investigation and that a grand jury may
have been misled into indicting people for crimes when there was no real
evidence. They had committed them to 13 indictments. I think at least five
dismissals, only one guy serving any kind of jail time. And that was a
fairly short stretch. I seem to recall 30 days or so. You can't be pleased
with the results of this whole situation. Well, you're right. That's one
point I wanted to cover here. I'm not going to try and tell anybody that
myself or the attorneys involved or the police are happy with the outcome.
We're not what went wrong. Well,
a number of things went wrong. It's sort of like one of these airplane
accidents. You know, it's not any one thing you can point at. It's
typically what happens in a drug case happened. In this case, a number of
people changed their testimony, so that went wrong. And then of course, we
had one witness who died in an automobile accident, so we lost that
testimony. It was a combination of a couple of people changing their
testimony and the death in the automobile accident. Ok, let me take the
other side of that. A lot of people, certainly, people who have followed
the case more closely than I have say, hold it. If you look at what was
available in the grand jury process, the testimony of Walter Davis
principally, you could easily tell that there wasn't going to be much
physical evidence there that the case was strung together shakily at best.
And really it wasn't, it wasn't a process of the case unraveling, it was
a process of the case never having been there in the first place. Well, my
answer to that is, is a lot of people have said, well, you wouldn't have
prosecuted these guys, but for the fact they were basketball players, you
don't prosecute people when you don't actually have drugs and therefore
you were only doing this for political reasons. Well, that's not true. We
prosecuted several high profile cases in this community that these people
have forgotten about where we didn't have drugs. There's an attorney named
Michael Master Vito who's doing 15 years in prison right now. There's Hal
Nevitt, the Scottsdale police officer who's doing seven years. There's the
female Phoenix police officers, three of them that we convicted of drug
charges and in none of those cases were their actual physical drugs. Ok.
But did you have at the time you issued the indictments solid
corroboration for, for example, Walter Davis testimony or did you bank on
, for example, the perhaps very real possibility that certain of the
indictees may turn against each other? Well, I think we banked on that to
a certain extent as we would in any drug case, what we had going into the
case, we got into the case. I think some people think along the lines if
we did this for political reasons that we targeted the Phoenix Sons as
some kind of decision up front, we're going to make this a priority.
That's not true. People are more familiar with the case know that we got
into the case because we had had a previous case involving three people
that we charged with gambling. During the course of that investigation,
there was discussions about uh trading information for uh drugs and uh a
particular bet on a Milwaukee game that was supposed to be under a total
shaving under 122 total points or something, right? So that, that's how we
got into the case and we didn't do it, as some people have said because we
thought it was some kind of political benefit. As a matter of fact, my
analysis was exactly the opposite. I thought from day one, that this case
had high political liability for the reason that people identify with the
team, the reputation of the city, all of those kind of factors that came
out as criticisms later. I never discussed the politics of it with the
police chief, but in my own mind, I certainly didn't perceive it as
something that was going to be of any political benefit. But when you
participated in that press conference, I think it was April 17, didn't you
promise more at that point in time than realistically, an analysis of the
grand jury case could deliver that being a major gambling problem and a
larger, I think nationwide drug conspiracy, or at least a distribution
conspiracy. Not just the kind of recreational drug use that I think it
turned out to be, that's not to excuse it. But didn't you promise more
than that? Well, actually what I did in the press conference, first of all
, there's been the accusation that because the police chief and I called a
press conference, we caused the publicity if you go back and look what you
find is is that the newspaper was writing front page top of the fold, big
headline stories about this case speculating about it for a long period of
time. Prior to that press conference, that press conference narrowed the
parameters of exactly what the charges were. They did not involve gambling.
All of the charges about gambling was speculation from so called sources
and so forth. Prior to that press conference, we have never charged
gambling. That is how we got into the case. And the press conference did
not involve that. Ok. What about the, isn't it an accurate statement
though? To say that you left the impression if not the outright statement
at that press conference that we were dealing with a drug conspiracy here
of certainly larger proportions than just 56 former Phoenix Suns players
stretching to other teams in the NBA, et cetera. And could that be
supported by the evidence you had available on April 17? Well, if we came
out of there with that, it was because we, we suspected or thought like
you mentioned before, that some people would turn and give additional
evidence and clearly we had some indications of that. That's how we got
into the case. Now, whether that impression was given or not, I really
don't remember that about the press conference, but I thought I was pretty
careful to say no, that's not what we're talking about. We're just talking
about these charges and, and this is the parameters because before that
through speculation and innuendo, a lot of people had been named and
charges speculated about that. We didn't allege another allegation County
Attorney's office blindsided Walter Davis into thinking it had a stronger
case on him than it really had in exchange for that. He took an immunity
deal and testified when he, if he had really known what you had on him, he
never would have done that. Well, my answer to that is what's wrong with
that. That's ok. That's the way we do business. Uh And in the sense of
when we're conducting an investigation, we attempt to get people to give
us information. And uh, uh I'm sure Walter Davis did not know everything
that we knew. And coincidentally that leads directly to another point when
the grand jury transcript was leaked and all the reports were leaked. That
was a factor that hurt our ability to press the case because suddenly a
lot of people who had made little noises through attorneys and so forth
about being willing to talk to us. Once that information was leaked, we're
no longer willing to talk to us and that hurt our ability to proceed. But
Tom in the interest of justice, is it very good for a prosecutor to
misrepresent his case to a potential accused or for that matter to try to
through that technique to put together strands that perhaps don't exist?
Well, I don't, number one is, I don't think we tried to put together
anything that didn't exist. We were trying to get the information to find
out what they did and what did exist. And I, I just would have to say
there was nothing that we misrepresented to anybody along the course. We
may have set tight and, you know, and basically said to anybody that we
interrogate, here's what we're looking into and they may think we know
more than we do, but that's standard interrogation. Am I wrong or was all
the evidence you ever had on Walter Davis? Really? His statements from a
year, a year and a half before when he had voluntarily checked himself
into the NBA drug treatment program. And, well, I, I don't know all of the
details. I couldn't list at all. But, but yes, you are wrong in the sense
that we did have information from the people that came through the
gambling investigation about players, uh, you know, visiting these places
and talking to these people and associating with them. It wasn't just
Walter davis' statements or, you know, what came out of the fact that he
had already come forward and declared a drug problem. Did you indict,
given what we've discussed here? Did you indict prematurely? Might it not
have been better to spend x amount of more time, whatever that may be? Two
weeks, two months, whatever, using the grand jury as an investigative tool
, perhaps trying to get people to turn, um instead of going with the
indictments in late April when the component parts of this case were not
knitted together. Well, I, I think the component parts of the charges that
we brought were knitted together. We don't bring charges unless we believe
we have sufficient evidence to convict in a jury trial. That's our
charging standard. And we thought that we had that. The problem was, is
these people's testimony changed after that. And people have said yes, you
should have waited. Well, my response to that is waited for what all of
the records are there, all the cases, there are all the testimony there,
there was nothing to wait for, nothing was forthcoming. For example,
Johnny High to corroborate Walter Davis testimony waiting for something
like that waiting for perhaps the did, but he died. Well, Yeah. But I mean
, I mean, in terms of the actual timing of the April indictment and the
use of, I mean, you know, as well as I do that the grand jury is
frequently used as the investigative means to build the case and make sure
you get a lock solid before you commit more public resource to it. Well, I
don't know, I don't think there's a lock solid proposition on any case And
I think also that people who say the prosecutor shouldn't do this with
this level of evidence. If you look back at all the level of evidence and
what was released in the grand jury transcripts and what was released in
the police reports. I would hate to think about what would have happened
to the police and the prosecuting agency criticism wise, if we had not
brought these charges, given the level of evidence that we had, we would
have been subject to severe criticism, cover up special favors, all of
those kinds of things that we've been subjected to for fighting release of
the report and, and for proceeding in the case, we would have been more
subjected to them. Had we not brought the charge? Why did you fight
release of the reports, particularly when the reports were already in the
hands of the press? Well, because as a prosecutor, I have an ethical
obligation not to talk about the case that that's lawyers ethics, I can
get a complaint from the bar association, the defense would make motions
to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct. They would make motions to
change venue and move the case out of the county to try it, which would
cost the taxpayers a lot more money. There were all kinds of laws there
that were just up in the air. There were the cases were pending, there was
pending grand jury matters. It was an ongoing investigation. There was no
way that I as the prosecutor could do that. I can't come forward when the
ethics say you can't talk about the case. And by the way, here's the
report and the courts say that the prosecutor is the person responsible.
They say the police and all the agencies work for you and we're going to
hold you responsible. Now that's something that's not really true, but
it's kind of a myth that the courts operate on. So I was in no position to
do that. And I would, I will fight disclosure of these reports in any case
, not just this one, but in any case, I don't believe for interest of
people's privacy. For the fact is, is I am a stop at the grand jury
transcript. Does it stop it? I think it stops with the police reports and
the grand jury transcript. We, I'm after the, after the indictment comes
down though, why, I mean, why doesn't, why can't the public in a manner of
speaking means test once a person has been charged the sufficiency of the
evidence behind that indictment because there is a means test. The means
test is the outcome of the case which is conducted totally in public.
That's the means test. And as a matter of fact, what the media wanted to
do was set up their own means test prior to a resolution in court, they
wanted to try the case based on the reports and based on the grand jury
transcripts and either find the people guilty or innocent outside of the
court system. And that's not the way our system is supposed to work. Tom
only about 30 seconds left. And I apologize for cutting this this short,
but I do want to get to one final point. Why not have done this back in
August July? And by this, I mean, talking publicly in August July
petitioned the court to get out from under the gag order and clear up
where the case was going at that point in time rather than leading leaving
people under this cloud for this long. Well, I just didn't feel that I
could do that because of the gag order, the ethics rules and the pending
grand jury investigation. And I, and the fact that we would have had those
motions to dismiss, change venue, all those kinds of ramifications. I just
am in a position where I had to wait and, and I'm, I'm, I'm real glad I
had this opportunity to, we appreciate you coming this evening. Take care.
Thank you up next on horizon. The Rio Salado project has found new life
in Tempe. We'll talk with Tempe. Mayor Harry Mitchell about the details
right after this.
It,
the idea of making the Salt River a recreational green belt originated 20
years ago as a class project at Arizona State University. Then it grew,
eventually, it grew into the Rio Salado project and voters evidently
thought that it had grown too much because they rejected it at the polls
last November largely on account of its $3 billion price tag. But years
before the Rio Salado development district was formed, the city of Tempe
was quietly buying up the river bottom land and preparing the groundwork
for its own version of the Rio Soto and Tempe's version has survived the
defeat of the larger project on November 3rd. The Rio Salado project went
down into the dust when Maricopa County voters overwhelmingly rejected it.
But within days, the city of Tempe announced plans to go ahead with its
own version of Rio Salado for the course of the last four or five years.
Essentially, we have had to play down Tempe's version of Rio Salado
in favor of the larger Rio Salado development district. And now we no
longer have to, I think it survived because of a couple of reasons. One
was the city has simply been dedicated to it for a long time with a firm
commitment to do something with the, with the uh the Salt River as it
flows through the city. I think the other thing was that circumstances
brought a lot of favorable forces to play here. One favorable circumstance
according to Tempe's Rio Salado Commission is the presence of bedrock on
both sides of the river at Mill Avenue. This restricts the river and
reduces flood problems. Another favorable circumstance is that few of the
dumps in the Tempe river bed are believed to contain toxic waste. The city
has already taken a lot of practical, practical steps to lay a foundation
for it. Uh stopped using the area of the river for uh the city is dumping
created now, I suppose 56 years ago, an overlay district surrounding the
river on both banks to control the sort of development and begin to
reshape what has traditionally been there to a higher standard. Parts of
the Tempe Rio Salado are already underway. Construction has started at the
ASU golf course next to the river on the south side of the river. In
addition, there is property being bought up by developers east of Hayden
road. The
ground about 225 acres on the south side of the river is going to be
available to the city of tie for developments, Parkland, the Rio. So Lotta
Parkway is being funded currently by the city of Tempe and will be built.
We know that on the south shore and on the north shore work has already
begun on the Salt River project's Papago Park Center. This is going to be
one of the premier mixed use master planned areas in America, striking
architecture, open parkways, small streams and lakes. It is going to be
magnificent. Some plans are still indefinite Tempe Beach Park, for
instance, might become a conference center or an arts center. Several
different possibilities exist.
One reason for leaving parts of the plan loose is to prevent an
overwhelming all at once. Bill like the one that doomed the large scale
Rio Salado in Tempe, we're going to essentially do a piece meal. We're not
going to start out to be able to do some of the things that we might like
to do all at once, but we will do it slowly and we will do it combined
with others. It won't all be government money. The difficulty is always
going and asking people directly for tax money for something because if
people feel the tax collector reaching for their wallet, they're always
thinking about, uh, what do I get out of this? So in essence, we will have
to do something which is sufficiently well devised that if we have to ask
the people for money, they will want to give it. And with us to discuss
this issue further is Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell Happy holidays here. Well
, thank you. How does the Tempe version differ if at all? I guess from
what the tie portion of the Rio Salado might have looked like I really
don't know Michael, other than I think that tie's portion will be quite a
bit different than what people envisioned throughout the campaign for the
Rio Salado project. Because a great deal has already been mentioned in the
show of the land in the Rio and is already in government hands. It's
already publicly owned. So there wasn't going to be a great deal of, of
skyscrapers and people being relocated from their homes and new homes and
businesses put in a great deal of it was going to be in the area of
essentially a clean up and a lot of public uses.
Ironically, is it perhaps an advantage for Tempe to a certain extent to be
able to go back to its original plans that it can execute according to its
own wishes and what it thinks is best as opposing as opposed to having to
rely on the Rio Salado development district for that. Well, I think that
we weren't going to really rely on it to begin with because Tempe's Rio
Soto plan really set the basis for the district's plan. The Rio Salla
Committee under the leadership that you saw Dave Hanna and the people that
have been very energetically involved in our Rio Sola project. These
people have set a plan that was the basis for the district's plan and was
modified uh only slightly as a result of the um, um plan six or the, the
cliff dam being deleted. But I might also add the, um, there is a lot of
districts plan could have been vetoed by a single city in each city, for
example, whatever the district came up with, if Tempe didn't like it, we
could say no, we don't want it. So we really were not going to be dictated
to by the district plan at all. How much money are we talking about for
Tempe's version of the Rio? Well, that's an interesting point because when
, and I think one of the, the bad parts that occurred with the Rio Salon
project, people saw it as a single project that there was going to be a
groundbreaking ceremony, then there was going to be a ribbon cutting and
it was going to be start and a start and a finish and there was going to
be so many dollars to it. It's not that way. It's like all cities and all
parks, it's going to evolve and grow. We don't really know how much is
going to be involved because we're going to use some of the tools that we
already have such as the overlay district that was mentioned, our planning
and zoning tools and when people come in and want to rebuild, they say,
well, just look what's here, it's run down, it's a trash area. We say,
don't look at it now look what it's going to be like. And as a result, you
put tougher standards. But then again, there's also a lot of public areas
, for example, the au golf course, one full mile of the Rio Soto and will
be a golf course. And then of course, as I pointed out the S RPS
development on the north side from Mill Avenue west to the Phoenix City
limits. And of course, also on the north side will be the extension of the
East Papago freeway with the Red Mountain. And we hope that the Department
of Transportation will do a great job of landscaping that along the north
side isn't there though. Harry, I would think basic seed money, if nothing
else, public sorts of funds that will be necessary to knit some of these
various component parts together. Well, I don't know if it will be
necessary to knit it together, but I think one of the things the city has
done is to show that we're very serious about it by putting our own money
up front. For example, at Hardy and the Rio Slaughter Parkway, we have a
sign facility, a sign shop for the city that I think is an outstanding
piece of architectural work and designed. We're getting ready to expand
our service center at Priest and the Real Slaughter Parkway to show that
we mean business that we're going to put
up what we've been wanting to do. And we're also putting together in this
current fiscal year, the improvement of the parkway Mayor Harry Mitchell
Thanks for being here. Thank you. Tomorrow on the horizon, we will examine
how officials are working to clean up the dust and soot that make up the
brown cloud over the valley. I hope you will be able to join us for that.
Thanks very much for being here this evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a
pleasant one. Good night.
If you have comments regarding this evening's Horizon program, send them
to Horizon Channel eight Television, Arizona State University. 10 P 85287.