Ex-Officers’ Murder Case Is Thrown Into Turmoil

For two years, one of the most serious criminal cases ever filed against Los Angeles police officers had moved through the downtown courts as relentlessly as a slasher in a horror film.

But the proceedings were thrown into turmoil last week when a judge who had spent months preparing for trial handed the defense its first major victory, only to find himself swiftly cut loose from the case by a bold--and much criticized--prosecution parry.

Accused of carrying out one contract murder and attempting a second killing to collect on an insurance policy, Richard Herman Ford, 44, a former Devonshire Division detective, and Robert Anthony Von Villas, 39, an ex-officer in the same unit, for months have faced increasingly damaging testimony.

A Canoga Park woman who said she had hired the policemen to kill her estranged husband agreed last fall to testify against them after she pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder.

Growing List of Witnesses

In January, another woman who admitted her involvement in the murder-for-hire plot added her name to the growing list of prosecution witnesses.

Based largely on the women’s new testimony, the district attorney’s office rewrote and strengthened a conspiracy charge--a key element in the murder-for-hire case--nearly doubling the number of alleged conspiratorial acts to be presented to the jury that will decide the ex-policemen’s fate.

But Judge Robert T. Altman, himself a former deputy district attorney, last Monday dealt the prosecution a serious blow when he questioned the mental stability of the woman who purportedly contracted the murder--and ruled that the issue could be raised in court. He also gutted the complex conspiracy charge after strongly criticizing the way it was drafted.

Two days later, the prosecutor struck back with a little-used legal challenge that automatically removes the judge from the case for prejudice, without requiring proof or even an explanation. However, his decisions stand, pending appeal.

Ford and Von Villas have been held without bail at Los Angeles County Jail since they were arrested in July, 1983, for the attempted murder of a striptease dancer on whose life Von Villas had obtained an insurance policy. The policy ostensibly was to indemnify Von Villas for a loan he had made to the woman. The officers were subsequently charged with stealing $210,000 in diamonds from a Northridge jewelry store.

Indictment in Second Case

Seven months after their arrest, Ford and Von Villas were indicted by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in another case--the contract murder of San Fernando Valley businessman Thomas Weed.

That case was the subject of Altman’s rulings last week. The judge agreed to reopen the preliminary hearing so defense attorneys may ask additional questions about the mental condition of Janie E. Ogilvie, 41, of Canoga Park. The request was strongly opposed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert N. Jorgensen, the veteran prosecutor who has said he will ask a jury to send Ford and Von Villas to the gas chamber.

Ogilvie, whom Altman described as “the key witness in the case,” has told authorities that in late 1982 she agreed to pay Von Villas and a partner $20,000 to kill Weed, 52, her estranged husband and her partner in an allergy testing laboratory in Northridge. Weed disappeared in February, 1983, but his body has never been found.

Ogilvie had acknowledged that she was under the influence of anti-depressant drugs when she testified at a preliminary hearing earlier this year, but a Municipal Court judge blocked defense attempts to question her more fully about her psychological state.

In reversing that ruling last week, Altman said of Ogilvie: “There are portions of her testimony which I can only characterize as bizarre. . . . The bottom line is that there is certainly a showing that she may have severe psychological problems, and that those problems may have affected and will affect her statements to the police, in front of the grand jury, and in front of a jury in this case.”

The judge added: “I would think that the prosecution, more than the defense, would want to know whether they are putting a mentally ill person on the stand and asking for the death penalty. . . . The idea of asking--of having a person executed on the testimony of a witness who may or--who may be mentally ill is just unacceptable.”

Equally damaging to the prosecution’s case was Altman’s ruling on the conspiracy count.

Difficult Case to Prove

That charge is especially important, attorneys familiar with the case believe, because without a body, the district attorney’s office may have trouble persuading a jury to convict Ford and Von Villas of murder. But if Jorgensen can prove that the former policemen agreed to kill Weed and that they took at least one concrete step toward achieving that goal, the jury can find them guilty of conspiracy.

After Ogilvie and other witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing about their dealings with Ford and Von Villas, Jorgensen added 34 so-called “overt acts” to the 37 already listed by the grand jury in the conspiracy count. Proving the agreement to kill Weed and any one of the 71 acts would prove the conspiracy.

But Altman last week struck all 71 acts from the charge, and told Jorgensen to substitute a single “overt act”--the murder of Thomas Weed. If Jorgensen cannot prove the murder, Altman ruled, he cannot prove the conspiracy.

In an interview, Jorgensen strongly disputed the judge’s findings.

“The way Judge Altman ordered us to redraft the pleading obviates the effect of the conspiracy charge,” the prosecutor told The Times. Murder and conspiracy to commit it are two distinct crimes, Jorgensen said, “and the realization of the object of the conspiracy is not required to prove the conspiracy.” Although Jorgensen would not comment, attorneys involved in the case said they expect that the district attorney’s office will appeal Altman’s decision.

Prosecutor Criticized

In court last Monday, Altman criticized Jorgensen for the way he had drafted the conspiracy charge, suggesting that the prosecutor intended to use the long list of “overt acts” to present to the jury allegations that might not otherwise be legally admissible.

“The use of conspiracy pleadings and theories in this case, in this court’s opinion, represents all of the evils that the appellate courts have warned trial courts to guard against,” Altman said from the bench. “Among other things, (conspiracy) pleadings are being misused to set the framework for allowing in every conceivable type of hearsay evidence. . . .”

Two days after Altman made those remarks, Jorgensen was back in his court. As stunned defense attorneys looked on, Jorgensen handed the judge a document commonly known as an affidavit of prejudice. Some lawyers sometimes jokingly refer to it as “The Kiss of Death.”

In effect, the affidavit states that an attorney believes a judge has become so prejudiced against his case that the judge can no longer fairly preside over it. When such an affidavit is filed, the judge is automatically dismissed. No further explanation of the prejudice is required.

Rarely Used

Defense lawyers and prosecutors each are allowed to file one affidavit of prejudice in each case they handle, but in practice the affidavits are used rarely, and almost never after a judge has been working on a case, as Altman had, for nearly two years.

After Jorgensen presented him with the affidavit, a visibly upset Altman said from the bench: “The court is obviously tempted to respond to . . . the district attorney’s action, but the court will not out of respect for the district attorney’s office.”

In a subsequent interview, the judge declined to elaborate.

But the move brought vocal replies from Richard P. Lasting, the attorney who represents Ford, and Jack R. Stone, the lawyer for Von Villas.

Altman, Lasting said in an interview, “is a judge who has the highest reputation for fairness, for thoughtfulness. . . . He’s a man who put a lot of time and work into this case.”

Stone said of Altman: “I never saw a judge more thoroughly prepared on a case than he was. . . . It’s just such a slap in the face. In effect, you’re calling the judge prejudiced. It’s an insult.”

Defense Motions

Stone noted that Altman had yet to rule on important defense motions challenging the legality of searches conducted at the homes of the former officers and the admissibility of a secretly tape-recorded jailhouse conversation between Ford and his wife.

“I think the D.A. was afraid he was going to lose more of his case,” Stone said.

Jorgensen said the decision to file the affidavit of prejudice was not prompted by Altman’s rulings. However, he and other officials, including Assistant Dist. Atty. Curt Livesay, refused to explain why the office took the action.

“All we’ve done is use an available legal tool that expressly does not require an explanation,” Livesay, the third-ranking official in the office, told reporters last week. “No explanation is required by law, and I’m not going to give one.”

The net effect of last week’s events will be further delay in a case that has already stretched out too long, attorneys for both sides said. The judge who takes over the proceedings most likely will spend several months reading a preliminary hearing transcript that runs more than 3,000 pages, as well as lengthy motions that have yet to be ruled on. Among them is a prosecution motion to consolidate the murder and attempted murder cases. A trial that had been expected to begin this fall most likely will not commence until sometime next year, lawyers said.

In the meantime, Richard Ford and Robert Von Villas will remain in Los Angeles County Jail, waiting for the day when their case finally goes before a jury.