In court, Haidl didn’t flinch

Last week, before Jeffrey Rawitz had begun cross-examining the government’s star witness in the Mike Carona corruption trial, someone asked during a recess how long the questioning would last.

“Until he cracks,” Rawitz replied. He wasn’t smiling.

In the four days I watched, Rawitz never came close to cracking Don Haidl, a top aide in former Orange County Sheriff Carona’s administration who is now alleging that, along with other gifts and favors, he gave Carona monthly payments of $1,000 over a four-year period ending in mid-2002.

Defense attorneys can never be sure how witnesses will react to cross-examination, and Rawitz couldn’t know at the outset that Haidl, a 10th-grade dropout who made millions in business, had a tough hide that belies his unassuming physical appearance.

But as Haidl’s stoic unflappability on the witness stand became more obvious, Rawitz -- no shrinking violet himself -- drew back from the edgy aggression that marked his opening thrusts. He became more judicious in picking spots to try to rattle Haidl, but never made him squirm.

I’d venture to say that the two -- each with a streak of street tough in him -- enjoyed the skirmishing that ended Thursday afternoon. For example, during one otherwise nondescript interlude between questions this week, Rawitz referred to Haidl as “the defendant.” No one caught it, except Haidl, who interjected, “the witness.” As the judge acknowledged the error, Rawitz said, with a grin, “I’ll pass on my thoughts on that.”

During another exchange, an impatient Haidl said to Rawitz, “Please, I don’t mean to be rude. I think I’ve answered the question five times already,” to which Rawitz retorted: “We may have to do it a sixth time, because I don’t understand your answer.”

Another time, Rawitz informed Haidl in advance about his line of questioning. “I just wanted to tell you where I’m going,” Rawitz said.

“It doesn’t matter to me where you’re going,” Haidl replied stonily. “I’m just here to answer the question.”

Haidl is at the center of the government’s case against Carona, because he allegedly took part in securing illegal campaign contributions for Carona’s first campaign for sheriff in 1998 and then, among other things, initiated the series of monthly cash payments to Carona and then- Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo.

If Rawitz didn’t reduce Haidl to tears, that’s not to suggest he didn’t score any points. It struck me that he neutered a number of allegations surrounding Carona, and in the process deflected much of the negative attention onto Jaramillo.

For example, Haidl’s overall testimony made his appointment to assistant sheriff in 1999 seem as much a matter of merit as political payback. And his testimony suggested that, once in office, he got few if any significant benefits from Carona -- other than staying in his nonpaying job. In fact, he testified, he lost money during his tenure.

But Rawitz didn’t seem to dent Haidl’s testimony that he made illegal cash payments to Carona. Unless something else develops later in the trial, it appears that the jury will be forced to judge Haidl’s credibility on that point.

And interestingly, Rawitz didn’t consistently attack that credibility. He brought up the potentially sweet deal that Haidl has struck with the government to avoid prosecution. He also suggested that Haidl grew disenchanted with Carona because the sheriff couldn’t deter the prosecution of Haidl’s son on rape charges in two separate trials while Haidl was a member of Carona’s command staff.

Whether the jury considers those sufficient motives to make up the story about cash payments will be decided during deliberations.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see how the jury could easily dismiss Haidl’s central allegation without hearing from Carona. His possible rebuttal to the charges hangs over the case like a heavy cloud.

And, of course, there are the tapes Haidl secretly recorded during three lengthy and occasionally profane conversations with his old boss. The jury has listened to several hours of them so far -- some more than once -- with the government contending that they show Carona was trying to influence Haidl’s testimony and that they show his own complicity in the illegal payment scheme. The defense contends, in essence, that the worst parts of the tapes are nebulous and that large segments point to Carona’s innocence.

Attorneys suggest the trial will extend well into December. Judge Andrew Guilford tells jurors before every break not to form opinions about the case until all the evidence is in.

A tough task. Chief accuser Haidl has been on the stand nine days, and the main cross-examination of him is over. The jury has heard all the secretly recorded tapes between Haidl and Carona.

Surely, jurors have an opinion as to whether they believe Haidl when he says he gave Carona the cash to keep others from bribing the sheriff. And whether they believe Haidl lavished the gifts on Carona and his friends because he thought Carona had star potential and wanted to ride along with him to higher office and political power.

The one thing that could change everything, of course, is Mike Carona on the witness stand.

If that doesn’t happen, I’m guessing the jury already is itching to deliberate.

--

dana.parsons@latimes.com