Judge Drops Charges Against Fiedler, Clarke : Reiner May Appeal Ruling on Congresswoman’s Aide, Claiming It Was Based on a Technicality

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge Wednesday dismissed indictments against Rep. Bobbi Fiedler and her top political aide for allegedly having offered a $100,000 campaign contribution to lure state Sen. Ed Davis out of California’s Republican U.S. Senate primary.

The action by Judge Robert T. Altman appears to have effectively closed the book on the case against Fiedler, which the district attorney’s office as well as defense counsels had recommended be dismissed.

But Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner said Wednesday afternoon that his office may yet appeal Altman’s ruling on Fiedler aide and fiance Paul Clarke--a decision that Reiner asserted was based on a technicality.

Fiedler Elated

The dismissals were hailed by Fiedler and Clarke. Speaking from Washington, Fiedler, 48, said, “I am just extremely elated--but not surprised. As I have said from the beginning, we expected it to be thrown out and indeed it was.”

The two rulings--in a highly controversial case that has stirred national interest and has had a profound effect on the ongoing Senate race--were based on different grounds.

In Fiedler’s case, Altman agreed with both sides that inadequate evidence existed to convict the Northridge Republican of violating the state Election Code statute, which makes it illegal to pay a candidate to secure his withdrawal from an election.

Emphasis on State Law

Altman, on the other hand, ruled that Clarke, 39, had not violated the state statute even if he had offered an inducement to Davis to drop out of the race. The state law, Altman emphasized, covers the advance, payment, solicitation or receipt of money--but not an offer to pay money.

Declaring that the Clarke ruling was “decided on a technical issue,” Reiner said a decision on a possible appeal to the state Court of Appeal will be made by early next week--after top prosecutors have finished examining a transcript of Altman’s remarks.

Reiner maintained that despite the lingering pall placed over Fiedler’s campaign, “she should feel very fortunate.”

“Everyone knows how long, how many months and months, it takes to get a case through the criminal justice system and hers went lickety-split through the system in just a few weeks,” he said.

Fiedler and Clarke were indicted by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Jan. 23 after a two-month investigation by the district attorney’s office.

Prosecutors had recommended to the grand jury that it indict Clarke but not Fiedler--but the independent panel, after hearing evidence from seven witnesses, voted to indict her anyway. After the indictment, spokesmen for the district attorney repeatedly insisted that the office would move forward with the case, but Reiner last week announced a policy shift, declaring that his office would ask Altman to dismiss the indictment against the congresswoman because of insufficient evidence to prove her guilty.

Prosecution of Clarke

The district attorney’s office, however, had been prepared to prosecute Clarke’s case until Altman made his ruling.

The probe of Clarke and Fiedler was launched last November after the Davis camp reported to authorities that a mid-level Fiedler supporter had made overtures to a mid-level Davis supporter about a possible campaign contribution to retire Davis’ campaign debt if Davis quit the race.

During the investigation, Davis’ campaign manager, Martha Zilm, made a series of secret tape-recordings of her telephone conversations and a meeting with Fiedler staffers--including Fiedler and Clarke themselves--at the behest of the district attorney’s office.

At the time that Fiedler and Clarke were notified by authorities they were under investigation--on Jan. 12, when prosecutors made a surprise visit to Fiedler’s home--no exchange of money between the two camps had occurred.

In instructing the grand jury last month, prosecutors argued that a crime had been committed by Clarke because he had offered funds to Davis to pay off his campaign debt to lure him into withdrawing.

For a month, prosecutors insisted that the statute was simple to understand, stating in a court brief filed last week that the statute “is plain on its face.”

Ruled Simply Wrong

Altman, though, ruled that the district attorney’s office was simply wrong.

The word “offer,” the judge emphasized, is not contained in the state law. Therefore, he said, it cannot be deemed illegal for a political camp to make an offer of funds to another candidate.

While Deputy Dist. Atty. Steven A. Sowders argued in court Wednesday that the word “advance”--which is contained in the statute--has the same meaning as “offer,” Altman indicated that “advance” implies an actual payment of funds.

Before the grand jury, Deputy Dist. Atty. Candace J. Beason had said that the word “solicit”--also in the statute--and “offer” both have the same meaning. But Altman said they “mean the exact opposite,” thus throwing into question whether the grand jury had even received proper instructions from the district attorney’s office before voting on the indictments.

“The court cannot rewrite the statute,” said Altman, during an hour-plus hearing. “. . . The case is dismissed.”

The statute, adopted in the late 1800s and revised in the mid-1970s, reads: “A person shall not directly or through any other person advance, pay, solicit or receive or cause to be paid or received any money or other valuable consideration to or for the use of any person in order to induce a person not to become or to withdraw as a candidate for public office.”

Praised by Defense

Defense attorneys praised Altman’s ruling, saying it was based on more than a technicality.

“It’s not a technicality when the district attorney simply hasn’t sat down to figure out what the statute says and can’t figure out what it says,” asserted Fiedler’s co-counsel, Daniel H. Lowenstein.

“The district attorney’s office comes off looking very bad because if you accept Ira Reiner’s version, they don’t know how to read a statute,” said Fiedler’s other attorney, Harland Braun.

Braun added that the state Legislature should consider clarifying the statute--so that it clearly applies only in cases where candidates receive personal rather than political benefits for withdrawal from a race.

In making his ruling, Altman rejected several other defense arguments, including one that federal laws concerning elections preempt state election statutes. No federal counterpart to the state law exists.

Altman also ruled that the grand jury was correct in determining that, with the evidence presented it by the district attorney’s office, probable cause existed that Clarke committed a crime--if the offering of an inducement had been a crime under the state statute. (While indictments are based on probable cause, a jury must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him at trial).

Reiner’s Assessment

Reiner said Altman’s determinations on probable cause showed that the Fiedler camp was indeed attempting to lure Davis out of the race.

Even if Fiedler could not be proved guilty at trial, Reiner maintained, “she was involved with her campaign manager in some pretty shoddy business.” Lowenstein, however, insisted that the two defendants “‘are innocent” and that “the judge, as judges usually do, decided (the case) on the narrowest possible grounds.”

“They did nothing illegal, they did nothing improper, they did nothing unethical,” he said. “Everything they did was honorable.”