U.S. Atty. Bonner Drops Out of Roos Inquiry

Seeking to prevent suggestions of conflict of interest in the continuing W. Patrick Moriarty public corruption probe, U.S. Atty. Robert C. Bonner revealed Thursday that he has removed himself from any decisions on whether to prosecute Assembly Democratic Leader Mike Roos on possible criminal charges in connection with the case.

Roos, one of several California politicians under investigation in the continuing probe of Moriarty’s activities, is represented by Los Angeles attorney John J. Quinn, one of Bonner’s former law partners in the politically powerful firm of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi and a key supporter of Bonner’s appointment as U.S. attorney two years ago.

Citing his former partnership with Quinn as the “only basis” for his decision to take no part in the Roos investigation, Bonner said the final decision on whether to prosecute Roos will be made by Assistant Atty. Gen. Stephen S. Trott, Bonner’s predecessor as U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and now the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division in Washington.

While Bonner has withdrawn from the Roos investigation, Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan, who worked as an associate lawyer for Quinn’s firm from 1975 to 1978, said he will continue to head the overall Moriarty investigation and will prepare a prosecutive memo for Trott presenting a preliminary assessment of whether there is sufficient reason to indict Roos on corruption charges.

“There is no conflict of interest whatsoever,” Drooyan said. “I was involved in all phases of this before I knew Jack Quinn was involved, and there is no reason for me to recuse myself on the Roos matter. Rob (Bonner) has no ethical or legal obligation to recuse himself, either. The reason he is doing it is because it is a politically sensitive investigation.”

Drooyan said Roos’ name had surfaced well before the Moriarty investigation officially started in early 1984 but that he did not learn that Quinn was representing Roos until August, 1984.

“Rob recused himself six months ago,” Drooyan said. “He did that when it became clear we were moving to a new phase of the investigation involving possible prosecutive decisions.”

Bonner and Drooyan would not discuss the allegations against Roos, but other sources have said the investigation has focused on charges that Roos received the favors of prostitutes paid for by Moriarty and was also involved in a lucrative Moriarty condominium project that netted Roos a $50,000 profit.

Other ties include $60,000 in low-interest loans Moriarty helped Roos obtain in 1981 at a time when Moriarty, owner of the Red Devil fireworks company, was sponsoring a fireworks bill in the state Legislature. Another matter involves a $100,000 investment by Roos’ father, Walter Roos, in the California Commerce Club once controlled by Moriarty.

Bonner and Drooyan spoke in detail about the Moriarty case for the first time in a joint interview with The Times after charges from legislative sources in Sacramento that Roos would not be indicted because of Quinn’s ties to the U.S. attorney’s office and that Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) has begun predicting that no state legislators will be indicted in connection with the Moriarty case.

While declining to comment on the alleged remarks of Brown and others, the two federal prosecutors defended the progress made to date in a 21-month investigation launched jointly with the Orange County district attorney’s office in March, 1984, and said all prosecutive decisions will continue to be made without consideration of any outside pressures.

“Given the complexity of the case, this case has not been unduly protracted,” Bonner said. “It is an investigation that is alive and well, and it has been moving at all deliberate speed.”

Drooyan also disclosed that he is seeking to have Moriarty’s scheduled sentencing on Monday on seven mail fraud counts related to public corruption charges postponed until Jan. 31. The sentencing of Moriarty, who faces a maximum possible prison term of 35 years after pleading guilty to the charges last March, already has been postponed several times.

Although Drooyan and Bonner refused to say why they are again seeking a delay in Moriarty’s sentencing and declined to evaluate his helpfulness in the continuing probe of various political figures, their general comments about what Bonner termed the “Moriarty affair” made it clear that they have not concluded their investigation.

“The investigation is still proceeding,” Drooyan said. “If the evidence develops that there were violations of criminal law by public officials or any individuals, we expect to go to the grand jury for indictments. We will do it free of any political pressure whatsoever.

“On the other hand, if there is a lack of evidence we will not seek an indictment, regardless of the public perception of the success or failure of the investigation,” Drooyan continued.

Bonner, observing that “there have been some truly significant prosecutive results in this case already,” said that the decision on whether to prosecute Roos will be the only judgment referred to Washington and that he will personally make all the other decisions on whether to pursue indictments in consultation with the Orange County district attorney’s office.

Bonner also dismissed the need for a special federal grand jury to look into the “totality” of the Moriarty case, a proposal made Nov. 26 by U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. during the sentencing of one of Moriarty’s former associates, Richard Raymond Keith, to four years in prison for income tax evasion and bank fraud.

“We have an investigative grand jury investigating this matter. That’s what I would call a special grand jury,” Bonner said. “I don’t think we need another one.”

While it is rare for a U.S. attorney to remove himself from a decision to prosecute any case under his jurisdiction, it is not unprecedented. Bonner said he has stepped aside in two other cases since taking office in February, 1984, because they involved people he had once represented.

Bonner, an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for four years beginning in 1971, joined Quinn’s law firm in 1975 and became a partner specializing in civil litigation. He left the firm shortly after being nominated U.S. attorney by President Reagan in early 1984.

Quinn, a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn., denied that he has received any special treatment in the Roos investigation.

“I think they’ve handled this in a very responsible manner,” Quinn said. “I’ve supplied them every document they’ve ever asked me for, including detailed accounts of the financial transactions of both Mike Roos and his father.”

Quinn, proclaiming his client’s innocence, also said Roos has told him that he has not told anyone that he thought he was going to receive any special consideration because Quinn was his lawyer.

“Absolutely not,” Quinn said. “He said he’s never done that. That’s the last thing anyone in his position would do. He hasn’t even been telling people that he has a lawyer.”