Fiedler Backs Off From ‘Political Ploy’ Attack on Reiner

Rep. Bobbi Fiedler said Tuesday she “may have misjudged” Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner in accusing him of a “political ploy” in connection with her indictment last week on charges of offering a $100,000 campaign contribution to lure state Sen. Ed Davis out of the Republican U.S. Senate race.

Fiedler was reacting to a disclosure that the district attorney’s office had recommended that the Los Angeles County Grand Jury not indict her. Sources close to the case have told The Times that while prosecutors recommended that the grand jury not indict Fiedler, 48, they did recommend indicting her friend and chief adviser, Paul Clarke, 39.

The district attorney’s office, which would neither confirm nor deny those reports, has said that major decisions in the case were cleared with Reiner.

On Monday, Fiedler accused Reiner of timing the indictment to detract from public criticism of the district attorney for dropping charges against five of seven defendants in the McMartin Pre-School child molestation case.

But on Tuesday, Fiedler said in a telephone interview from her Washington office, “I was just extremely pleased to hear that (Reiner recommended against indicting her). Given the political dynamics it appeared to be a convenient diversion. But I may have misjudged him. If I misjudged him, I apologize to him.”

Reiner Out of Town

Reiner is vacationing in Europe and has been unavailable for comment.

Fiedler also said Tuesday that Reiner’s decision to recommend against indicting her “shows that the D.A.’s office, which has the responsibility to evaluate the merits of the information, thought there was not a basis on which to indict me.”

However, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gilbert I. Garcetti, who would not comment on the indictment recommendation, said Tuesday, “We are going ahead full bore based on the evidence we know today.”

Fiedler was asked Tuesday if the negative publicity over the indictment--whatever the outcome--might lead her to quit the U.S. Senate race and try to remain in the House.

“Absolutely no chance of that,” Fiedler said defiantly. “I’m running for the U.S. Senate and I’m going to win. This has solidified a base of people who have been longtime supporters, and they are mad as hell and prepared to go to work in every way they can to help me.”

Fiedler entered the race on Jan. 6, six days before she and Clarke were informed that they were under investigation. Davis entered the primary in February, 1985, and has led the crowded field by a few points in early polls. He has acknowledged having a large campaign deficit late last year but now contends that his fund raising has picked up.

Davis, who lives in Valencia, and Fiedler, who lives in Northridge, share a base in the San Fernando Valley, and the two campaigns have sniped at each other ever since they began exploring the race two years ago.

Both Likely to Be Hurt

Political professionals in both parties believe that the indictment of Fiedler and the charges that Davis and Fiedler have been trading in recent days will hurt both candidates in the GOP Senate primary.

Fiedler and Clarke were indicted last week on the basis of an obscure state election code statute that makes it a felony to pay or offer to pay a candidate to quit a political race. Davis contends that his campaign was approached with such an offer by Fiedler’s campaign, while Fiedler and Clarke contend that they were approached by Davis’ people and that any discussions after that proceeded under the assumption that Davis was already out of the race.

According to sources familiar with the evidence, the indictment of Fiedler resulted in part from a Jan. 12 conversation at Fiedler’s home that was secretly recorded by Davis’ campaign manager, Martha Zilm, who was cooperating with Los Angeles County prosecutors.

The indictment of Clarke resulted in part from a conversation he had with Zilm early this month in a San Fernando Valley restaurant in which Zilm reportedly warned Clarke that what they were discussing may be illegal. Clarke reportedly brushed that aside with the reassurance that it was not illegal if it was not on paper.

A source familiar with Fiedler’s version of the events confirmed Tuesday that the conversation did take place but insisted that when all of the evidence is made public it will be clear that Clarke thought Davis had pulled out of the race. The Fiedler source also said that Clarke had “misspoken” when he told Zilm that the fund-raising arrangements were not illegal if not written down.

What Clarke meant to say, the Fiedler source said, was that he had checked with a lawyer in Washington who told him “not to make any written arrangements on that kind of fund raising because it can be just a mess.”

After a two-month investigation by Reiner’s office, the grand jury heard seven witnesses and returned indictments of Fiedler and Clarke on Jan. 23.

‘Politically Sensitive’

“We took it (to the grand jury) for investigative purposes first,” Garcetti said Tuesday. “We told them that we might be asking for an indictment. . . .

“As the case progressed, it turned out that they heard at one point just about all the evidence, and we decided . . . this was obviously a politically sensitive case, we will ask the grand jury to be the conscience of the community . . . and then make a decision after we have made a recommendation to them,” Garcetti continued.

Garcetti and other officials of the district attorney’s office reiterated Tuesday that they cannot discuss their indictment recommendations until a transcript of the grand jury hearing is publicly released. The transcript, Garcetti said, is still being prepared and is likely to be given to Fiedler’s lawyers on Monday, at which time Fiedler could make the transcript public.

Asked Tuesday if she planned to release the transcript soon, Fiedler said, “I really can’t respond to that inquiry at this point. My legal counsel has to make a determination.”

Grand Jury Leaks

Garcetti refused to comment on whether the district attorney’s office would have filed charges against Fiedler if the case had not been brought to the grand jury.

Garcetti, the No. 2 man in the district attorney’s office, also discussed apparent leaks of secret information on grand jury deliberations by grand jury members. “No one is happy with the leaks that have obviously come from the grand jury,” he said, adding that anyone on the 23-member panel who discusses the votes or deliberations could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor.

Garcetti said it would be up to Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, who supervises the grand jury, to investigate the “intolerable” leaks and added that “more will be happening on this.”

The district attorney’s office has been unable to discover a previous prosecution under the state statute used in the Fiedler-Clarke case.

UCLA Law School Prof. Daniel H. Lowenstein, who last year published a paper on political bribery in the UCLA Law Review, said Tuesday that because the state’s appellate courts have never interpreted the law--which was enacted in 1893 and amended several times--the case against Fiedler appears “very uncertain.”

“The statute is pretty general in its language,” Lowenstein said. “It’s very much subject to interpretation.”

Based on his own interpretation of the California statute, Lowenstein said Fiedler would likely be vindicated--at the appellate level if not at trial--since she allegedly offered remuneration of “a political nature . . . (not) money in his pocket.”

“It’s certainly my impression that the practice alleged here, namely one candidate helping to pay off the deficit of another candidate in connection with the other candidate withdrawing, is a pretty common practice,” Lowenstein said.