Defense Seeks Mistrial in Gang-Rape Case

Prosecutors in Orange County’s gang-rape case said Thursday they were within their rights to ask a witness if she had a “social relationship” with a defense lawyer -- a question that prompted one defendant to ask for “drastic sanctions” against the prosecution and another to request a mistrial.

The trial of three young men accused in the videotaped incident is scheduled to resume next week. But the two sides have filed a flurry of motions this week over procedural issues.

Charged in the case are Gregory Scott Haidl, 18, along with Kyle Joseph Nachreiner and Keith James Spann, both 19. Each faces up to 55 years in prison if convicted of raping an unconscious 16-year-old girl -- known as “Jane Doe” in court -- in July 2002.

The issue over the questioning of a defense witness arose last week when Deputy Dist. Atty. Dan Hess asked Vanessa Obmann if defense lawyer Joseph G. Cavallo had offered her an internship or had a “social relationship” with her.

The defense called Obmann and other former friends of Jane Doe to testify in an effort to cast doubt on the alleged victim’s credibility.

Cavallo, who denies there is any truth to the prosecution’s suggestions, on Wednesday asked the judge to sanction Hess. A second defense attorney asked the judge to declare a mistrial.

On Thursday, each side had the chance to argue the issue. Hess presented evidence to justify asking the question: A taped telephone conversation between Obmann’s hairdresser, Jessy Heidt, and Heidt’s boyfriend, a Riverside County jail inmate and one of Cavallo’s other clients.

On the tape, Heidt said Obmann told her that she often visited Cavallo’s office and that she had wanted to fix the lawyer up with her mother. She also said that she planned to intern at his law office. Prosecutors did not say how the recorded conversation came to their attention.

Outside court, Cavallo, who represents Haidl, didn’t deny the jail conversation occurred. But he contended the story must have started as a joke between Obmann and Heidt. “It was probably said joking around between the two girls,” he said.

Arguing for a mistrial over the issue, Nachreiner’s lawyer, John D. Barnett, said the prosecution’s insinuation has tainted his client by implying to the jury that all of the defense attorneys are “dirty.”

“Aspersions cast upon one lawyer extend to the others,” Barnett said. “When one lawyer’s conduct is questioned, then we can’t be effective before the jury.”

Judge Francisco P. Briseno will take up the matter again at a hearing Wednesday, when Heidt will be called to testify. Also next week, he will hear arguments on a defense motion to toss out charges that the defendants used force to rape the girl.

The prosecutor can’t contend that the suspects both used force and raped an intoxicated person, defense lawyers said. The force charges carry mandatory prison terms, so, if they are dismissed, the suspects could be given probation even if convicted on all other counts.