Histrionics, Side Issues Color ‘Twilight’ Trial

When Superior Court Judge Roger W. Boren recently postponed testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of film director John Landis for 24 hours because of a juror’s illness, one might have thought the day would pass uneventfully.

Not in the case of the “Twilight Zone.”

Before leaving the courtroom, Harland W. Braun, the attorney for one of the co-defendants, questioned whether the district attorney’s office had surreptitiously taped one of its own prosecutors, a charge later denied by officials.

Then he accused the prosecutor, Deputy Dist. Atty. Lea Purwin D’Agostino, of engaging in a “barbaric” act by displaying color photos of the mutilated bodies of the three victims, actor Vic Morrow and two children, Renee Chen, 6, and Myca Dihn Lee, 7, on her office wall.

The histrionics intensified outside the courtroom, with the two lawyers trading insults like a pair of professional wrestlers promoting a match.

“Talk about a grotesque chamber of horrors,” Braun said, complaining that the gory photos were in plain view of witnesses waiting to testify.

“It serves to remind me and those who choose to look at them of the absolutely violent deaths these children met,” D’Agostino rejoined. Later she added, “Harland, I must come and redecorate your office some day.”

As the trial enters its ninth week of testimony today, such sniping and side issues have at times appeared to supplant the key issues of the case. Landis and four associates are charged in the 1982 deaths of the three actors, who were killed when a helicopter spun out of control and crashed on them during filming.

Instead of focusing solely on whether the defendants should bear criminal responsibility in the deaths of three people they did not deliberately harm, the 12-member jury must also weigh such issues as whether D’Agostino or the former prosecutor on the case, Deputy Dist. Atty. Gary P. Kesselman, is more credible; whether Kesselman or a key witness, production secretary Donna Schuman, is lying and whether county fire officials covered up a fire safety officer’s prediction of the tragedy.

They may seem extraneous, but the prosecution believes that some of these points illuminate the culpability of the defendants, and the defense claims that others underscore the bankruptcy of the district attorney’s case.

Peripheral Issues

These issues arose amid a steady stream of name-calling between the attorneys, allegations of legal misconduct and peripheral issues that have been presented by the lawyers outside the presence of the jury or in hallway interviews with reporters.

Among those brought up by D’Agostino are whether Landis should actually have been charged with second-degree murder, whether Landis was trying to outdo fellow director Steven Spielberg in filming the grandiose scene that ended in tragedy and whether witnesses who testify truthfully might be blackballed in the film community.

Further intensifying the atmospherics is the case’s backdrop of Tinseltown glitter, reinforced by the cameo appearances--as courtroom spectators expressing their support for Landis--of such actors as Dan Aykroyd, Jeff Goldblum and Ralph Bellamy and film directors Michael Ritchie, David Cronenberg and Paul Bartel.

In one angry moment, D’Agostino slapped Bellamy with a subpoena to testify after he voiced his opinions of the trial in a courthouse hallway. Boren later quashed the subpoena for the octogenarian actor, calling it a “fishing expedition.”

One effect of the acrimony has been to dramatically lengthen the trial of Landis and his co-defendants--associate producer George Folsey Jr., special effects coordinator Paul Stewart, helicopter pilot Dorcey A. Wingo and unit production manager Dan Allingham. Although it had been expected to conclude by year’s end, only 40 of 150 anticipated prosecution witnesses have been called to the stand, with the defense to follow. Both sides now believe that the scheduled four-month trial, which costs the county $5,800 a day, could last twice as long.

‘Theatrical’ Trial

Such legal melodrama is not uncommon in high-profile cases, according to legal experts.

“But this one seems peculiarly theatrical,” said USC law professor Charles Whitebread. “There are other cases with public attention that are without these very personal types of attacks.”

Sanford Kadish, law professor at Boalt Hall in Berkeley, agreed that the name-calling in the case was unusual even for a big media case and offered an explanation. “In Los Angeles particularly,” he said, “you get histrionic behavior by lawyers because of the traditions of Los Angeles as the locus of the entertainment industry. . . . It’s all Hollywood.”

As might be expected, D’Agostino and the defense attorneys have opposing interpretations for the shifting focus.

The prosecutor asserts that the defense is engaged in a “very carefully choreographed (plan) to divert attention” from the culpability of the defendants.

“It’s completely premeditated and preplanned,” D’Agostino said in an interview. “It’s an attempt to try and get me on the defensive instead of presenting my case so that I have to worry about answering their accusations on a daily basis. And number two, even more importantly, it diverts the attention of the press away from the devastating evidence that keeps coming out against their clients.”

Defense attorneys counter that the side issues are the result of the legal blundering and personal excesses of an overreaching prosecutor.

‘Gasoline on a Fire’

“Putting her on this case is like adding gasoline to a fire,” said Braun, the strident defense counsel, who has called D’Agostino “scum.”

“I mean there are pictures of her looking into the mirror putting her earrings on in People magazine,” said Braun, who represents associate producer George Folsey Jr. “She’s got pictures of body parts on her wall in her office. Can you imagine, she eats lunch in there? I mean, this is a sick woman; she’s so sick she doesn’t even understand how sick this is.”

Other defense lawyers said the prosecutor has created side issues by calling too many unnecessary witnesses. The defense says it takes heart from this because it allows them to raise even more questions in the minds of the jurors over witnesses’ credibility and the logic of the case.

“She’s trying to cover the waterfront . . . but it’s good for us,” said James Sanders, Landis’ co-counsel. For example, he said, the defense was able to raise credibility questions because D’Agostino plans to call every fire safety officer on the film set.

Until county fire safety officer Richard Ebentheuer was cross-examined, the defense had no idea that he had predicted the helicopter crash, without warning the film makers. The defense was then able to cry foul, saying the defendants should not be held liable for concerns safety officers did nothing about. The defense was also able to charge county officials with a cover-up because the officer’s predictions were not contained in two Fire Department reports on the accident.

‘You Can’t Win’

The prosecutor calls such criticism absurd.

“You can’t win with these people,” she said. “If I hadn’t called these people, they would have screamed cover-up because I didn’t call them. It’s a defense attempt to put everyone on trial except the five defendants in the courtroom.”

Like Braun, D’Agostino is not shy about hurling epithets concerning counsels’ motives.

“Mr. Braun would call his own mother a liar if it would help his case,” she said recently after the defense attorney questioned the truthfulness of testimony by Daniel Lee, father of one of the dead children.

D’Agostino claims that the personal attacks against her are part of an overall defense strategy orchestrated by Landis’ co-counsel James F. Neal, a former Watergate prosecutor who has refrained from much of the name-calling. She adds that the defense has the advantage of having half a dozen voices.

Whoever is correct, both sides acknowledge that the side issues have, in their own way, become relevant.

“As a lawyer, any issue that could exculpate your client is a major issue. . . . Credibility is always a major issue in any lawsuit,” said Arnold Klein, representing special effects coordinator Paul Stewart. “Who am I to say what the jury is going to hang their hats on?”

Trial ‘in the Press’

Braun said he has no choice but to try such a high-profile case “both in the press and in the courtroom. Public opinion can affect what happens in the courtroom,” he said. “Judges react to the public perception of what is going on, and rightfully so. The prosecutor of Los Angeles County is a totally political animal, and he reacts to that too.”

D’Agostino does agree on the importance of influencing how the case is covered by the press. Although jurors have been instructed by the judge to ignore news accounts of the case, D’Agostino said they are nonetheless likely to notice the headlines before they can turn the page or switch the station.

In a bid to prevent that, Boren imposed a partial gag order two weeks ago prohibiting the attorneys from further public discussion of evidence that has not yet been heard by the jury. The order, however, does not prevent the press from reporting matters taken up in the courthouse outside the jury’s earshot.

Issues that have arisen in such sessions have included defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and D’Agostino’s remarks about Landis’ alleged motives in filming the fatal scene.

With the gag order comes a possibility for a new side issue--allegations concerning violations of the order. And as if in anticipation of this, Boren told both sides last week that he intends to set aside time on Friday afternoons for possible contempt hearings on such charges.