Prosecutor Says It Will Be Difficult to Convict Fiedler

A top Los Angeles county prosecutor predicted Thursday that it will be very difficult to convict Rep. Bobbi Fiedler, who was indicted last month for allegedly offering a $100,000 campaign contribution to lure state Sen. Ed Davis of Valencia out of the Republican U.S. Senate primary.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gilbert I. Garcetti told reporters that politicians tend to make believable witnesses at trials and that juries appear to require a “higher burden of proof than the law requires before they will return a verdict of guilt.”

Although transcripts of the grand jury hearing released Wednesday show that the prosecutor’s office actually recommended against Fiedler’s indictment (it did, however, recommend the indictment of her chief aide, Paul Clarke), Garcetti said the prosecution will nonetheless forge ahead against both defendants.

“If the evidence established her innocence, we could not and would not go forward,” he said. “That is not our conclusion.”

Garcetti defended the grand jury, saying its members acted fairly and did not reach their conclusions hastily.

Asked whether the panel’s action was a matter of amateurs disregarding the advice of professionals, Garcetti responded: “It is always difficult to convict an elected politician. . . . I’ve been doing this for a number of years and jurors have a tough time convicting an elected politician because they usually make a pretty good case for themselves on the witness stand.

“This is not the coldblooded killer, the person who looks like a crook. This looks like an average citizen and it’s a lot harder. They almost require a higher burden of proof. . . .”

Fiedler and Clarke are to be arraigned and enter pleas today on charges of violating a state election law that makes it a felony to pay or offer money to a candidate to drop out of a political race.

The two defendants have launched a high-publicity campaign in recent days to rebut the charges, including frequent television appearances and an extraordinary press conference and tape-playing session Wednesday in which Fiedler aides made public a series of once-secret tapes recorded by Davis’ campaign manager, Martha Zilm, at the district attorney’s request.

The tapes, released by the prosecution to the defense, included no passages in which Fiedler directly offered any money in exchange for Davis’ leaving the race.

No Danger to Trial

Garcetti, the No. 2 man in the district attorney’s office, said that the release of the tapes should not hurt the trial process. He added that prosecutors will rely on additional evidence and on the credibility of witnesses, including Zilm, who appeared before the grand jury last month.

In a wide-ranging interview Thursday, Garcetti also responded to several defense criticisms and questions, including:

- Was Fiedler indicted by a runaway grand jury that ignored the prosecutor’s recommendations? No, Garcetti said, explaining that Deputy Dist. Atty. Candace Beason “voiced our strong recommendations to the grand jury and I am very confident this grand jury deliberated and considered all the relevant evidence . . . and concluded the evidence was sufficient to warrant criminal prosecution.”

- Why didn’t Davis himself meet with Fiedler during the two-month investigation? Defense lawyers have complained that instead of having Davis wired for sound, the district attorney’s office sent Zilm to vital meetings with Fiedler, Clarke and Fiedler campaign aides.

Garcetti said the idea of wiring Davis was explored, but “if you have the main witness one politician running against another . . . there’s a built-in credibility question there,” and indeed, the matter could become “more political than it is.”

A Possible Strategy

Still, Garcetti conceded, if his office had done anything differently, it would have been to arrange a personal meeting between Davis and Fiedler.

- Why are charges against Fiedler being pursued if, in Beason’s words to the grand jury, “looking to the time of trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt . . . the evidence supports . . . no indictment . . . against Bobbi Fiedler”?

Calling the grand jury “the conscience of the community,” Garcetti said the panel made a decision and the district attorney’s office believes it is proper “to honor that judgment and we’re going to vigorously proceed.” Moreover, Garcetti said, at trial the prosecution need not prove that Fiedler herself offered Davis $100,000--only that she aided and abetted co-defendant Clarke in committing an illegal act.

- Were the defendants entrapped? To do so, Garcetti said, “we would have had to place the idea in the mind of the accused.” Rather, he said, authorities were called into the case by the Davis camp early last November after a Fiedler supporter, Arthur S. Pfefferman, first contacted a Davis supporter, George Moss, concerning Davis’ possible withdrawal from the race.

- Why, however, did Zilm, who did not hear anything directly from the Fiedler camp, call Moss back more than two weeks after the initial contact and ask him to get back in touch with the Fiedler camp about an offer? Once the first possibly illegal contact was made, Garcetti said, it was incumbent on the authorities to proceed with an investigation. And that is why Zilm was instructed to contact Moss two weeks later, he said.

- How does this case compare to the McMartin Pre-School sex abuse case in which the district attorney’s office recently dropped charges against five defendants after top-level prosecution staffers determined there was insufficient evidence to prove the five guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Although “we would not have filed (our own charges) against Fiedler,” Garcetti said, prosecutors believe the evidence still could prove Fiedler guilty, even though it is unlikely that a jury will agree.