Santa Ana : Four Ordered to Trial in Prostitution Case

After three weeks of testimony from more than 30 prostitution suspects, four of the five people accused of operating one of the county’s largest prostitution rings were ordered Wednesday to stand trial in Superior Court.

Alfonso Lopez and his girlfriend, Wendy Haskin, both of Buena Park, were bound over for trial on 41 counts each of pimping, pandering and conspiracy to commit pimping and pandering.

Also bound over for trial were Calvin Walker on 37 counts of pimping and pandering, and David Koynok on 10 counts of pimping and pandering.

Debra Dew, arrested and charged earlier this year in connection with Lopez’s alleged prostitution service, was the only defendant to be released by Municipal Judge Kazuharu Makino after the lengthy preliminary hearing.

Arraignment was set for Nov. 3 for the four defendants.

Prosecutors have alleged that Lopez, advertising in the Yellow Pages and the Orange County Register, operated a veiled call-girl ring under the names of Exotic, She, Chi Chi and Adam and Eve escort services. Calls made to Executive Answering Service in Santa Ana and the four escort services allegedly were forwarded to Lopez’s, Walker’s or Dew’s residence.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Kenneth O. Chinn said Wednesday that testimony had revealed “a pattern of conduct.” He said prostitutes, who were referred from Exotic or one of the other services, checked in with the service at the beginning and end of the one-hour calls, usually engaged in sexual activity with a customer and handed over one third of the $150-an-hour fee to Haskin, Walker or Koynok.

One of the women who testified said she made an average of 15 calls a week, sometimes on “doubles” with another girl to service a client. She said she would later meet one of the defendants at a gas station or convenience store to turn over the escort service’s share of the money.

Neither Lopez nor his attorney could be reached for comment.

But Calvin Walker’s attorney, Clancy Haynes, said Wednesday: “The judge’s ruling was based on equating escort with prostitute. There was ample testimony that escort also included talking and accompanying men on social events. The evidence clearly established that what any given escort chose to do on any given occasion was simply a matter of individual choice.”