Judge in Carona cases upholds use of taped conversations

A federal judge today handed former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona a significant blow to his defense against corruption charges, ruling that prosecutors can use secretly recorded conversations in which Carona and a former top aide allegedly plotted to cover up illicit cash payments and gifts.

U.S. Dist. Judge Andrew J. Guilford also rejected the former sheriff’s motions to dismiss the six charges against him, which include three counts of mail fraud and two counts of witness tampering.

The witness-tampering charges involve accusations that Carona tried to dissuade former Assistant Sheriff Donald Haidl from testifying to a grand jury investigating Carona. Those charges were based in part on the secretly recorded conversations.

In a third ruling, Guilford granted Deborah Carona’s motion to be tried separately from her husband.

The decisions were among several issued today by Guilford in the corruption case against Carona, his wife and former mistress Debra Hoffman, who are accused of misusing the sheriff’s office to enrich themselves and others.

Federal prosecutors had maintained that it was entirely proper for them to send Haidl to meet with Carona and secretly record three conversations. They noted that if the Haidl recordings were excluded, then it would provide an easy out for other suspects: simply hire an attorney and then never have to worry about someone recording your conversations.

Defense lawyers had sought to have the tapes excluded from his upcoming trial, arguing that prosecutors should not have sent the aide to meet with Carona because the former sheriff had a lawyer at the time. They argued that the clandestine meeting violated a law that prohibits prosecutors from communicating with parties represented by lawyers.

Guilford said that although the State Bar of California prohibits attorneys from contacting unrepresented parties, there are better options than throwing out the evidence. For instance, he noted the state bar can discipline attorneys.

“In this case, where the law governing … investigatory contacts is unclear and where less extreme remedies are available, the harm caused by suppression is too high a price to pay.”