A Houston Drug Cop's Murder Conviction Highlights the Potentially Deadly Consequences of 'Testilying'
Similar scandals across the country suggest the problem is widespread.

Nearly six years ago, Houston drug cops killed a middle-aged couple, Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, after breaking into their home to serve a search warrant. Last week, a jury convicted Gerald Goines, the former narcotics officer who obtained that no-knock warrant by reporting a heroin purchase that never happened, of felony murder.
Although that outcome was highly unusual, the dishonesty that led to Goines' prosecution is much more common. When your job involves creating crimes by arranging illegal drug sales, it is not such a big leap to create crimes out of whole cloth, especially if you are convinced your victim is guilty.
Goines targeted Tuttle and Nicholas based on 911 calls from a neighbor, Patricia Garcia, who described them as armed and dangerous drug dealers who had sold her daughter heroin. Garcia, who did not even have a daughter, later admitted she had made the whole thing up, pleading guilty to federal charges related to her false reports.
In his search warrant affidavit, Goines claimed a confidential informant had bought heroin from a man at 7815 Harding Street, where Tuttle and Nicholas lived. Goines later confessed he had invented that transaction, although he claimed he personally had bought heroin at the house the evening before the raid.
Prosecutors showed that was not true either. They presented evidence that Goines was 20 miles away from the house at the time of the alleged drug purchase and had not visited the location that day.
As jurors learned during the sentencing phase of Goines' trial, his lethal lies were part of a long pattern. For more than a decade, drug suspects had complained that Goines was framing them, but no one in a position of authority took them seriously until it was too late for Tuttle and Nicholas.
Back in 2008, for instance, Goines claimed he had bought crack cocaine from Otis Mallet. Mallet, who always insisted that Goines was lying, served two years of an eight-year prison sentence before he was released on parole. In 2020, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared him "actually innocent."
Mallet's case was one of 1,400 involving Goines that the Harris County District Attorney's Office re-examined after the Harding Street raid. More than 30 convictions have been overturned as a result of that review.
The informant who supposedly bought heroin from Tuttle worked with Goines for more than two decades. Initially, she testified, she would buy drugs from the suspects he identified, but eventually he would pay her to sign forms documenting fictional purchases.
But for the disastrous Harding Street raid, which precipitated an exchange of gunfire in which Goines and three other officers were injured, the 34-year police veteran would have been free to continue business as usual. "Goines and others could never have preyed on our community the way they did without the participation of their supervisors," Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in July 2020. "Every check and balance in place to stop this type of behavior was circumvented."
It is hard to say how often this sort of thing happens, since prosecutors, judges, and jurors tend to discount the protestations of drug defendants—especially if they have prior convictions—and automatically accept the testimony of cops like Goines, who are presumed to be honest and dedicated public servants. But similar scandals in cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco show the problem of "testilying" is not limited to Houston.
"Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace," Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane, a former San Francisco police commissioner, wrote in 2011. "One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath."
Testilying "is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law," Keane observed. "Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America."
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
At least prosecutors didn’t claim Goines was colluding with Russia…
The cops have gone out of their way to NOT prove there was any exchange of gunfire.
Although that outcome was highly unusual, the dishonesty that led to Goines' prosecution is much more common.
Do you have anything to back that up, besides the claims of one guy from over a decade ago, or are you just ACABing?
Also, lol at your ACAB forcing you to be all, "Gosh, I was sure they were going to let the bastard cop go free," and having that narrative torpedoed to the point that you don't know how to react (but you absolutely know you can't say something as treasonous as, "I guess the justice system DOES work!").
Clown World, Jake. You're clown world.
This is why you never go full ACAB. It's like full retard. Don't do it.
his lethal lies
lol, don't try to hide your bias even a little bit Jakey Jakey News Is Fakey.
It is hard to say how often this sort of thing happens
You literally said it was "much more common." Yea, I know you just made that up out of whole cloth based on bigotry and hatred, but y'know, try not to be so obvious about it.
But similar scandals in cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco show the problem of "testilying" is not limited to Houston.
So.... six? Is the number six? All from major cities with huge populations? I don't know if you can reasonably conclude that as "common."
Do you really think that in all the history of policing only seven cops total have lied about their interactions with the public to hide wrongdoing, or lied in order to get a warrant? You really expected Jacob to provide an exhaustive and complete list of examples in the article?
I think that garbage ACAB JoUrNaLiStS like Jakey Fakey News here, if they intended to do something other than pander to bigotry and prejudice, would put a lot more effort into investigating the subject and making the case for just how widespread he claims it to be.
This is, incidentally, the problem with the MSM as well. It's why nobody believes or takes seriously anything they say anymore. Except, of course, for all the mindless dogs who are happily lapping up whatever slop is fed to them because it confirms their biases. Intelligent people like you and me see through that kind of nonsense though.
The problem with your response is that you take my criticism of a lack of effort as a demand for an "exhaustive and complete" effort. I'm not demanding that. We don't need every single instance that's ever happened. Just some actual effort put into proving that the problem is as big and as widespread as he's acting like it is. Which he conspicuously avoids.
This is the problem with narrative reporting, rather than fact reporting. And why "journalists" like Jake here no longer deserve that moniker.
The problem with your response is that you take my criticism of a lack of effort as a demand for an “exhaustive and complete” effort. I’m not demanding that. We don’t need every single instance that’s ever happened. Just some actual effort put into proving that the problem is as big and as widespread as he’s acting like it is. Which he conspicuously avoids.
Right, he "avoided" it by listing six other cities nowhere near Houston in which exist documented cases of cops making up crimes to justify arrests and warrants.
Except if you read those links, you would see that they aren't documented cases of what you claim.
Ex. the Philadelphia link is a historical resource detailing corruption issues throughout the 20th century. It only details 2 incidents in the 21st century, loosely at that, and the larger of the two has some inconvenient facts as the officers in question were later reinstated, given back pay, and are all current officers in the PPD, several of whom were promoted in the last ~10 years.
Grand narratives are dangerous. Doesn't matter if you're pro or anti skub.
This Houston story is more relevant because it is a factual case of corruption and graft, but the 'bad apples' narrative that people use to ignore possible systemic abuses is the same as the 'ACAB' narrative that people use to imagine systemic abuses where there are none. Faith alone doth not an argument make.
Fair enough. The Chicago link is most directly akin to what Goines did. Philly and Los Angeles are lists of events. (Incidentally, the fact that some of these officers were reinstated is not necessarily indicative of a lack of wrongdoing on their parts, but may be indicative of the effectiveness of police unions in getting cops who have been guilty of misconduct reinstated, another topic Reason covers periodically.)
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/283/229/963.jpg
I mean, it's anecdotal, but I've seen it in person at least a few times. Obvious lies that just a little bit of skepticism would easily uncover, but none was displayed.
Anecdotal evidence is fine. If you've got first-hand accounts, by all means, tell us about them. And name names.
Even small towns have bad cops.
Oh come on! Go to Youtube and watch some body camera and citizen footage of pigs lying in the smallest of events. It's more than a daily occurrence, but you think it doesn't happen in big cases?
You're conflating.
Lying to obtain a search warrant is a problem.
Lying to obtain a confession from a suspect is not.
Heck, even lying with implied/overt threats isn't a problem. "Your buddy already confessed! You're going down. If you don't admit what you did, it's not just going to affect you - your wife? We'll investigate her too. Same with your mother. Your kid? Child services. Group home. Do you want that? Is that what you're willing to lose?"
Not a lick of that might be true, but there are two kinds of people in that chair: the one who has nothing to be afraid of because he's certain of his innocence, and the one that does because he knows his guilt. The latter is the one that confesses.
Well, I guess there's a third type - the sociopath. They're the ones who aren't afraid despite their guilt, and are entirely willing to sacrifice anyone and anything to protest it. And I suppose they're also an increasing demographic. Mm, disheartening.
Well, anyway, point is - "pigs lying" only matters in contests of due process. So long as due process is afforded, lying isn't a problem. When it subverts due process, that's when it becomes objectionable.
Lying to obtain a search warrant is a problem.
Tish tosh, sir! Was the officer specifically trained to understand that lying about criminal activity taking place in order to obtain a warrant for a no-knock raid is in fact a problem? And was this training done regularly just in case the officers forget that obscure element of the legal system? If not, then how could a reasonable person expect to remember such trivial legal minutiae?
Lying to obtain a confession from a suspect is not.
Heck, even lying with implied/overt threats isn’t a problem. “Your buddy already confessed! You’re going down. If you don’t admit what you did, it’s not just going to affect you – your wife? We’ll investigate her too. Same with your mother. Your kid? Child services. Group home. Do you want that? Is that what you’re willing to lose?”
Not a lick of that might be true, but there are two kinds of people in that chair: the one who has nothing to be afraid of because he’s certain of his innocence, and the one that does because he knows his guilt. The latter is the one that confesses.
Not always.
https://www.science.org/content/article/psychologist-explains-why-people-confess-crimes-they-didn-t-commit
Was the officer specifically trained to understand that lying about criminal activity taking place in order to obtain a warrant for a no-knock raid is in fact a problem?
Yes.
Not always.
That’s on them, not the cop.
If the cops have made you for a crime, they’re going to try and attach as much evidence to you as possible. MOST OF that evidence will come directly from you. As your article mentions, a confession is the gold standard. Don’t give it to them.
That’s why any good citizen knows that the key to getting along in a rights-based society is to KNOW your rights and exercise them. The Founders made this perfectly clear – but, unfortunately, the oh-so-progressive blocs of our society have decided that we shouldn’t teach that anymore, in favor of blind obedience/deference and dependency on the State.
You can whine and hyperventilate about pressure, and the game of Good Cop vs Bad Cop, and the psychological toll of being inside of an interrogation room – but at the end of the day, YOU are the one in control of yourself. Not the cops. #1 Rule in a crisis situation: keep your head. And in a crisis such as being made for a crime and being interrogated by the police, the first and only word that should come out of your mouth is: “attorney.”
But people don’t know that. (Seriously! Go up to the next 10 random people you encounter and ask them to tell you what their 6th Amendment Right is. They won't know. It's f-ing sickening.) Because the oh-so-progressives who love to talk about empowerment have decided that a victim-class is better than an actually empowered – by their rights – one. So they’ve actively deprived them of that knowledge, filled their pudding heads full of pop culture, and just let it all play out.
Quote: Some confessed just to get out of the stressful situation
That’s panic. Panic never helps anyone. That’s a fox in a trap chewing off its own leg. No. Be better than that. America created a society where you NEVER have to do that, and guaranteed all the tools you need to be better. But being a good American – yea, I said it: being a good American – means knowing your rights and exercising them; it means keeping your cool when things go sideways; it means in times of trial and tribulation you become stronger, not weaker.
If you’re a garbage American, which so many of us are now, you don’t know that. You don’t even care to know it. You’ve fallen for the poisonous belief that it’s all just dominance and victimization – and you whine about the latter instead of standing up for yourself. And you mewl that it’s the system that should change, instead of yourself.
The Founders of this country already changed the system. They made it the single greatest society and nation that has ever been known to mankind. It’s citizens are the failure, not the system. Because they’ve become weak, and fat, and lazy, and co-dependent, and panicky, and complacent, and willfully ignorant. The State takes advantage of that.
Because we let them.
We say it all the time on this website. If you’re ever in police custody, remember this one and only rule: keep your mouth shut.
If you can’t keep yourself from doing something as simple as that, well, like I said – how do you blame the cop for that? He’s doing his job. If I offer you a shovel, you don’t have to dig your own grave with it, Chip.
Yes.
Hold the phone. Is it possible you might be considering the possibility that this particular cop might actually be a bastard? That this cop could have committed some sort of wrongdoing? Are you even capable of admitting that there might be police officers who aren't paragons of virtue? You might need to throw out all your thin blue line swag.
He’s doing his job.
It's not the cops' job to make as many people guilty of a crime as possible by any means necessary. It's not the cops' job to create criminals, which is what happens when you pressure an innocent person into confessing by deceit. While I don't disagree with the idea that people should know their rights and exercise them regardless of what the police do, that doesn't absolve the police from operating with honesty and respect for the rights of the suspects. Even the people who are, in your terms, a garbage American.
If I offer you a shovel, you don’t have to dig your own grave with it, Chip.
Sure, you can choose not to dig right now. But if not I'll start going after your family. Start digging now and I'll leave your family alone, AT. If you refuse to start digging now, I can also arrange it so that you have to dig a deeper hole. Don't force me to do that paperwork, AT, or it will be worse for you. Think what it will do to your reputation if I have to do all of that. Think of your family and dig, AT. At any rate, you're not leaving police custody until you finish digging. I get to go home tonight, while you stay confined. You could go home too in a bit if you just start digging.
And if you think the truth that you’re innocent is somehow on your side, think again. It’s not the truth that matters in court, it’s what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you confess or not, you wouldn’t be the first ‘innocent’ person convicted of a crime they supposedly didn’t commit. But if you confess now then it will be an easier process than if you fight it. And guess what else if you insist on being difficult? You get convicted for a long stretch, maybe even life in prison. And then maybe ten or twenty years from now some lawyer will get around to looking at your case and discover that you really are innocent, but by then you’ll have spent twenty years behind bars for pleading not guilty and getting convicted with everyone but you saying you’re guilty. And I’ll have finished my career by then and be sitting on a beach in Maui. Unfuckingtouchable thanks for Qualified Immunity.
Sure, you can try to sue the police department, or the city or county or whatever, but all you punish if you win is ignorant taxpayers who have nothing to do with this. That'll learn 'em! It won't touch my pension though, so what do I care? Pick up the shovel.
On the other hand, if you just confess, we’ll go for leniency and you might be back out in five years. Five years in prison or who knows how long — your choice.
So pick up your fucking shovel and start digging.
Hold the phone. Is it possible you might be considering the possibility that this particular cop might actually be a bastard? That this cop could have committed some sort of wrongdoing?
I plainly admitted, over the course of several redundant articles on the subject, that I thought he was in the wrong. Why does this surprise you? You wouldn't be asserting some kind of obvious prejudice against me, would you?
It’s not the cops’ job to make as many people guilty of a crime as possible by any means necessary.
Hilariously enough, it's actually precisely that. Find the criminals, tie them to their crimes, give the DA a case. That's literally policing in a nutshell.
It’s not the cops’ job to create criminals, which is what happens when you pressure an innocent person into confessing by deceit.
I'm sorry Chip, but you lose me at this notion that an innocent person can be "pressured" into a confession by deceit. That's a person who doesn't understand their rights. That's a person who has not taken their American Citizenship seriously; made any effort to learn its duties, demands and protections; and is wholly willing to roll over for the State when it exerts said pressure.
That's a garbage American. Lament the term all you want, it's accurate as hell. Did you take me up on the challenge? How many of the 10 people you asked knew what their 6A right was? You're so upset that I call them "garbage." Did you make even the slightest effort to determine that fact for yourself by asking them a simple question EVERY American over the age of 14 should know to give any indication that they're NOT garbage?
They don't know it, Chip. And if you don't know your rights, how can you possibly exercise them? Better yet, how would you ever know if someone took them away?
The United States of America was not intended for garbage Americans who don't know their rights, don't know their duties, and aren't willing to stand for that which was so perfectly described in the Declaration, the Constitution, the Pledge, and the Creed.
Ten bucks says you didn't know America had a Creed. You literally googled it right this minute, didn't you. Be honest.
America was not designed for the ignorant and complacent. All your whining about cops, it's ultimately making excuses for the ignorant and complacent Americans which you KNOW you're one of and thus are compelled to makes excuses for.
Sure, you can choose not to dig right now. But if not I’ll start going after your family.
Do it. Seriously, do it bitch. Americans are made of sterner stuff than that.
Or at least they were. And I am. And so is my family. Molon labe.
And if you think the truth that you’re innocent is somehow on your side, think again. It’s not the truth that matters in court, it’s what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Correction: it's what the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Often with proof you readily handed them.
And guess what else if you insist on being difficult? You get convicted for a long stretch, maybe even life in prison. And then maybe ten or twenty years from now some lawyer will get around to looking at your case and discover that you really are innocent
I mean, if you're really that certain of it, you could HIRE one to look at it.
So pick up your fucking shovel and start digging.
Language.
And you're forgetting the most important part. They can't make you dig.
YOU choose that.
I'm not going to deny that there's problems in our justice system. But I will blame you for not having the faith that every American citizen SHOULD have in it - and their lacking in rebellion against all those who are obviously trying to actively destroy it.
Vile copsucker. You are willing to give this guy every benefit, but ordinary little people get thrown in the slammer on cop hunches.
If this guy wasn't cop, you'd want him tossed so far in prison you'd have to pipe in light. Are you his partner? You probably do this every day and think nothing of it because have the God given gift of knowing who's guilty just by smelling him.
You are scum. Please die soon.
You are willing to give this guy every benefit
Why aren't you willing to do the same? Or are you against the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
but ordinary little people get thrown in the slammer on cop hunches.
No, they really don't. But I suspect when you use terms like "the slammer" you don't actually know what you're talking about.
A cop hunch is usually the first of many steps on the way to "the slammer." There's a whole lot of checks and balances (you can read generally about them in this interesting thing called The Constitution, which I highly recommend) between their hunch and the slammer.
If you want to get even more into it, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence are also things that you'd be nothing but benefitted by familiarizing yourself with. Or you can pay someone to do it for you. That works too.
If you remember to call them.
If this guy wasn’t cop, you’d want him tossed so far in prison you’d have to pipe in light.
If the guy wasn't a cop, we wouldn't have the set of circumstances we do here. How would anyone BUT a cop wind up in this kind of situation? Are you even thinking before you ACAB? Don't go full retard here dude.
And bear in mind, in the half-dozen articles Jakey Fakey posted about this dude, I've been pretty clear in my agreement that he was probably going down for this.
You are making comparisons not of reality, but the worst of everybody but police, and the authorities being angels. Authority figures comes from the same corrupt, and corruptible human race everyone else comes from. Just like democrats believe all businessmen are venal, but government people have only pure motives. I stand on the belief I've had for decades, that anyone who wants to be a cop is psychologically unfit for the job.
At the very least, anyone who wants a position of power over others wants to use that power over others. I’m very sure most of them enter the position with noble ideals, but as a police officer friend told me numerous times “98% of the time you’re dealing with the worst 2% of society.” And this was from a guy who worked as an EMT first, so I have no doubts as to his intentions to help as many people as possible. But it can become very easy to dehumanize the people you’re dealing with, which can lead to instances of police brutality or other rights violations.
After all, to use AT’s own words, they’re just 'garbage' people.
I stand on the belief I’ve had for decades, that anyone who wants to be a cop is psychologically unfit for the job.
And if anyone were to challenge that belief, you'd reject it out of hand, am I right?
Meaning you're a fanatic, for whom no amount of evidence or reasoning would convince you otherwise.
I'm not accusing you, I'm just asking you for clarification. Are you a fanatic?
AT you’re a boot licking scumbag. Acab is real and everyone knows it. It’s you guys against us. That’s your rules not ours.
So get fucked. Fag.
Language.
ACAB is a bunch of angry children who don't know their rights, who think they can do whatever they want, and that there should be zero consequences or accountability for their actions.
They seem to want the wild west, but then they complain when the rest of us string them up from the gallows or shoot them under the poker table.
couldn't have happened to a nicer guy
To serve and protect
Just who are they serving and who are they protecting?
Maybe this trial will create changes for the better inside police departments.
Not really expecting anything positive . They ( the cops union) will simply apply pressure to the politicians.
However, I'm quite surprised they got a conviction and sent him to prison.
There's no need to be vindictive about this. Running him through with a bayonet should suffice.
Can we do that with all the criminals? Especially the drug ones?
No. There is no reason in the world that selling drugs should be illegal.
The death penalty should be reserved for those who abuse government power.
Well, truth be told, I'm against the death penalty completely. The risk of error, however slight, is too high to justify it.
But let's just say for sake of argument that every recreational drug user and peddler suddenly dropped dead. Would that be a net positive or a net negative for the world? Sure, we might lose Elon and some other people who provide great benefit - but at the same times, we'd also lose a LOT more bottom feeders and degenerates. Which way do you think the scales would tip?
And if you are yourself a recreational drug user, try not to let that prejudice your answer. It's not a measure of your own personal standard - it's of a cost/benefit that affects everyone else.
It would be a net negative bc that’s the same thing hitler was trying to do. You can’t outsmart nature, it always bites you in the ass. If we killed off all the drug users - who next? All the cops. Then all the disabled. Then all the men bc who needs em, all they do is rape women, right?
No that’s a stupid slippery slope but no one expected you to think that far ahead - you just respond to stimuli with emotion making your decisions. Like any old termite or roach .
If we killed off all the drug users
I have specifically - literally, in the very post you replied to - said I'm 100% against that.
You mean like the cops? Sure. You can rehabilitate a drug user, you can’t do the same for a cop tho