WASHINGTON -- A Kansas woman, whose routine drug case has deeply shaken the Justice Department and federal prosecutors across the nation, is taking her legal cause to the Supreme Court.

In appeal papers that will reach the court by mail this week, Sonya Evette Singleton of Wichita is asking the justices to rule that federal prosecutors may not offer an individual involved in a crime lenient treatment in exchange for testifying against a defendant -- a practice followed by generations of prosecutors.

The law makes it a federal crime to give something of value to a witness in exchange for his testimony. The statute is written to apply to "whoever" violates it. That means federal prosecutors, too, are covered, Singleton's appeal argues, a view rejected by a federal appeals court in January.

"It is true," she argues, "that there has been a practice of paying criminals for their testimony; however, when the law clearly forbids this, the practice must be stopped."

Singleton is serving a 46-month prison sentence after being convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The only testimony linking her to the crime was given by an accomplice, who was promised leniency if he implicated her.

The chances of Singleton winning a Supreme Court review of her case appear to depend upon whether the justices see a need to sort out widely divergent views of judges over whether the law applies to the government.

The law, which applies only in federal cases, is one of the most important in the Justice Department's legal arsenal, aiding prosecutors in breaking cases that might otherwise falter.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver agreed with Singleton's argument in July, saying prosecutors cannot make leniency-for-testimony exchanges.

That ruling sent tremors through the federal legal establishment, with high-ranking Justice Department officials saying it could undermine untold numbers of federal convictions.

The appeals court panel's decision, however, was withdrawn when all 12 members of the court decided to take on the issue. The full court rejected Singleton's argument in a decision in January.

The vote of the full court was 9-3 against her, but the court split three ways in interpreting the law.

Seven judges took the broadest stance, saying the criminal ban on purchasing testimony does not apply to the U.S. government, including its prosecutors. The government is the sovereign, not a person covered by the word "whoever." Two judges said the law does apply to the government, but said other laws allowing prosecutors to arrange plea bargains take precedence.

Three judges -- the same three who, on the panel, ruled for Singleton last summer -- dissented, saying the law should apply fully to prosecutors.

Singleton's appeal, filed by John Val Wachtel, a court-appointed Wichita lawyer, argues that the appeals court twisted the law's meaning to suit prosecutors.

"In order to protect the government's pretended age-old practice of buying testimony through leniency, the majority was forced to conclude that the government is not included within the meaning of 'whoever,' and, accordingly, that the government may give, offer or promise value in exchange for testimony," the appeal said.

The Justice Department has a right to respond to her appeal before the Supreme Court acts on her request for review later this spring.

Pub Date: 3/24/99