A year after the discovery of a dog yard on the Virginia property of Mike Vick sparked an investigation that culminated in Vick’s incarceration, a Surry County deputy sheriff claims that his termination was the result of his involvement in the case.

Bill Brinkman, who worked for the sheriff’s department for nine years, was fired in December 2007, a month after Sheriff Harold Brown was re-elected.  Brinkman says that he wasn’t given a reason for the decision, being told only that Brown wanted to “go in a different direction.” 

Brown claims that the decision wasn’t a ”firing.”  (Um, what the heck was it then?)  Brown also admits that the Vick case had something to do with the non-firing firing.

Brinkman claims that Brown told him only a week into the investigation that prosecutor Gerald Poindexter wanted Brinkman to be fired.  Brinkman eventually worked with federal agents who took over the investigation because Brinkman was uncomfortable with the manner in which Poindexter was handling the investigation.

Brinkman also claims that Poindexter ”often brought up a racial angle” when discussing the case.  “Every time you met with him, it was a very unsettling, uncomfortable, degrading conversation,” Brinkman said.  “Everything’s wrapped around race.” 

Poindexter claims he didn’t make race an issue in the case, and that it was his critics who made the matter a racial one. 

To the contrary, however, Poindexter was the one who played the race card when the feds took over the investigation in June 2007.  Said Poindexter at the time:  “There’s a larger thing here, and it has nothing to do with any breach of protocol.  There’s something awful going on here.  I don’t know if it’s racial.  I don’t know what it is.

“What is foreign to me is the federal government getting into a dogfighting case.  I know it’s been done, but what’s driving this?  Is it this boy’s celebrity?  Would they have done this if it wasn’t Michael Vick?  Apparently these people want it.  They want it, and I don’t believe they want it because of the serious criminal consequences involved. . . .  They want it because Michael Vick may be involved.”

Poindexter also claims that he didn’t have a role in instigating Brinkman’s termination.  “That is not true,” Poindexter said. “Does that even begin to sound plausible?”

Well, yes it does.  Thanks for asking. 

In any county, the prosecutor is the chief law enforcement official.  Though the sheriff doesn’t report to the prosecutor, the two work together very closely.  If there’s a deputy whom the prosecutor thinks is undermining the manner in which things should get done, it’s extremely plausible that the prosecutor will suggest to the sheriff that it might be wise to “go in a different direction.”

This development makes us even more suspicious (opinion, not fact) as to whether Poindexter might be tanking the state-court prosecution against Vick.  By inexplicably failing to get indictments returned on charges that Vick was involved in killing dogs — even after Vick admitted to doing so in connection with his federal guilty plea — Poindexter is pushing dog-fighting charges only, which in our assessment likely will be dismissed due to a Virginia law that prevents multiple prosecutions for the same activities.

Vick has been prosecuted for conspiracy to engage in interstate gambling and interstate dog fighting.  He hasn’t been prosecuted for killing dogs.  By getting indictments in state court based only on dog fighting, Poindexter has set the table for the state charges to be dismissed.