U.S., State May Merge L.A. Probes

After months of independent investigation, federal and state authorities are finalizing plans to combine their public corruption probes of Los Angeles city government, according to law enforcement sources.

The anticipated move by the U.S. attorney’s office, Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, FBI and U.S. Department of Transportation would represent a significant step forward in investigating allegations that contractors were required to pony up political donations to compete for city business.

Two local deputy district attorneys, Max Huntsman and Scott Goodwin, are being cross-designated as assistant U.S. attorneys, in part so they can participate in federal grand jury proceedings, law enforcement sources said. An undisclosed number of assistant U.S. attorneys, in turn, will get authority to act in state court. The attorneys will also be able to share information and documents.

The federal and state agencies are expected to formally join forces within the next several weeks, the sources said.

Although joint federal and local investigations are not uncommon in large-scale narcotics or gang cases, this would mark the first time since the investigation into the LAPD’s scandal-plagued Rampart Division that federal and state prosecutors had so carefully coordinated their public-corruption inquiries.

From a practical standpoint, combining the investigations would give both federal and local authorities more resources than they now have in probing suspicions that city contracts have been awarded on the basis of political patronage rather than merit.

For Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s office, it would bring the considerable muscle of the U.S. attorney’s office and the FBI to an inquiry that seems to be moving on several fronts. Investigators are examining at least three city departments -- airports, the port, and water and power -- each with huge budgets and thousands of employees.

For federal prosecutors in Los Angeles, a combined investigation would also have benefits, because the FBI’s investigation of the contracts began after the district attorney’s, which followed a city audit that raised troubling questions about the contracts.

Mark Werksman, who has worked both as a federal prosecutor and a deputy district attorney, said it would make sense for federal and state authorities to work together in the investigation. He noted that the district attorney’s office is somewhat restrained by its limited resources and jurisdiction, while federal authorities can send FBI agents all over the world. The U.S. attorney’s office also has extensive experience using grand juries to compel testimony and subpoena documents in political corruption cases.

On the other hand, he said, the U.S. attorney’s office would be able to rely on the access and expertise of state investigators and prosecutors to penetrate relationships and transactions in local government.

“Why reinvent the wheel?” said Werksman, now a private defense attorney. “It interests everybody to pool resources.”

A joint investigation would also prevent the two agencies from conducting competing inquiries.

“It’s a good idea to coordinate,” said Richard Drooyan, former chief assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles. “You avoid stepping on each other’s toes. It’s a much better way to proceed in an investigation.”

Drooyan, now a partner in a Los Angeles firm, said the U.S. attorney’s office combined efforts with the Orange County district attorney’s office during the 1980s prosecution of businessman W. Patrick Moriarty. Drooyan said Orange County prosecutors approached the federal authorities once they realized that there was possible corruption beyond county boundaries.

Federal and state prosecutors also worked together about the same time on a series of cases charging adults who sold drugs near schools. A Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, Susan Bryant-Deason, was cross-designated to work as a special federal prosecutor to head that prosecution effort. One of the reasons for prosecuting those cases in federal court was the longer sentences available there.

Although it is unclear whether there would continue to be separate grand jury proceedings in the joint corruption probe, Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson said witnesses would probably testify before only one grand jury. That would eliminate the possibility that they would give slightly different statements to each panel. And there would be no concerns about witnesses receiving immunity from one agency and not the other.

There is also probably a political reason for merging the investigations, she said.

“Nobody wants to give it up,” Levenson said. “This way, they can share in any successes.... Cooley wants to sort of move into the big leagues when it comes to white-collar investigations.”

The benefit of having separate inquiries, however, would be that if the state failed in its prosecution, federal authorities could take a separate shot at the case.

No one is predicting, even privately, where the investigation will lead. Although authorities have seized a virtual mountain of documents and presented hours of evidence to federal and county grand juries, those versed in public corruption cases say they can be tougher than they look to prove to a judge or jury.