Pubdate: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 Source: Topeka Capital-Journal (KS) Copyright: 2000 The Topeka Capital-Journal Contact: 616 S.E. Jefferson, Topeka, Kansas 66607 Website: http://cjonline.com/ Author: Steve Fry GOOD INVOKES THE FIFTH Move spares fired deputy from testifying at Meneley trial. A former sheriff's narcotics officer who was acquitted in June of two counts of perjury invoked the Fifth Amendment on Tuesday, blocking him from testifying in the perjury trial of former Sheriff Dave Meneley. Meneley, 54, is charged with two counts of perjury stemming from his testimony twice in 1999 that he didn't know that former Cpl. Timothy P. Oblander was addicted to cocaine while he was a sheriff's narcotics investigator. Behind closed doors Tuesday and outside the presence of the Shawnee County District Court jury, former Deputy John Frank Good, 41, claimed his Fifth Amendment right against making self-incriminating statements. Good briefly sat in the courtroom Tuesday afternoon before he left his attorney and members of his family to watch the Meneley trial. Jurors have heard Good's name during testimony and heard remarks by attorneys and the judge questioning whether he would be available to testify. By invoking the Fifth, Good becomes unavailable as a witness. On Aug. 8, Good was served by the district attorney's office with a subpoena requiring him to testify on behalf of prosecutors, and his name was announced in court as a pending witness. Good was acquitted June 13 of perjury linked to his testimony about whether he knew Oblander, his former partner and best friend, had used illegal drugs while a deputy. Sheriff Dick Barta fired Good on April 20 for perjury, impeding an investigation and conduct unbecoming an officer, according to records. Good had been a deputy for 15 years. County counselor Rich Eckert said Tuesday he thought Good's pleading the Fifth would hurt his chance to reclaim his job as a deputy. Good is in the midst of arbitration to win back his job. "The arbitrator will have the opportunity to review today's actions," Eckert said. "It's a sad day when a deputy who wears the sheriff's blue -- or hopes to -- takes the Fifth. We can't fire a guy twice. It just shows that Sheriff Barta made the right decision." According to the sheriff's department contract with the county, an officer who refuses to testify in a case where he or she is the investigating officer or who is involved in the case may be immediately fired. An officer can't be compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, and that refusal to testify shall not be grounds for disciplinary action, according to the contract. Barta said Tuesday that Good's termination would be decided by an arbitrator. In other testimony, Oblander said he told then-Sheriff Meneley and others in early 1999 not to lie on his behalf about his drug abuse. Oblander said he and Good met Meneley; Michelle Brokaw, Meneley's campaign manager; and Deputy Scott Baker at Brokaw's home during a night gathering between January 1999 and Feb. 26, 1999, the date Oblander resigned. "I wanted to tell them things were getting out of hand and I didn't want anybody to get in trouble for me," Oblander said. "I didn't want anybody to lie for me or get in trouble." Under further questioning by District Attorney Joan Hamilton, Oblander acknowledged he thought Meneley would lie for him because "he had known about the drug abuse that I had been involved in." On questioning by Margie J. Phelps, a defense attorney for Meneley, Oblander said Good and Meneley simply answered, "OK" to his statement. But Oblander admitted that as a law enforcement officer, he probably wouldn't believe someone who told him the "don't-lie-for-me" statement in which experienced officers responded only with "OK." Phelps challenged whether the meeting at the Brokaw house ever happened. "Yes, it did," Oblander answered. Oblander told jurors he resigned on Feb. 26, 1999, "just because of the disgrace I had caused" and after he learned his records detailing his cocaine addiction would be made public. Oblander said Meneley didn't question why he invoked the Fifth during the November 1998 preliminary hearing of a defendant in a drug case. Oblander took the Fifth because there were rumors he might be questioned about taking the Fifth during a 1996 inquisition by the attorney general. By the end of court on Tuesday, the trial's third witness was testifying. Twenty-nine people have been listed as witnesses by prosecutors and defense attorneys. - --- MAP posted-by: Don Beck