Educator’s Study Stirs New McMartin Case Controversy

The letter--written on University of California stationery, signed by the chairman of the sociology department at UC Riverside and sent to 1,000 former Los Angeles jurors last month--looked official.

It described a research project on jury selection aimed at discovering “attitudes . . . about the sexual experiences of very young people.” Recipients were asked to fill out an attached questionnaire that focused on the McMartin Pre-School molestation case.

But the study did not have university approval, and its $15,000 cost will be borne by county taxpayers.

The court-approved study is a private project headed by sociology department chairman Edgar W. Butler, who was hired by McMartin defense attorney Dean Gits to provide support for a possible motion for a change in venue. Gits’ client, Peggy McMartin Buckey, and her son, Raymond, are to go to trial Nov. 25 on 101 counts of child molestation and conspiracy.

Gits said he may ask that the trial be held outside Los Angeles County if the study finds that the pool of potential jurors has been tainted by extensive publicity during the 18-month preliminary hearing.

After a few demographic queries, the survey asks such questions as:

“Do you think that most (or some, a few or none) of the children involved in the McMartin preschool case were sexually abused?

“At what age do you feel that children can reliably describe things that actually happened to them?

“Based on what you know about Peggy McMartin Buckey, do you think she is guilty (not guilty, don’t know)?”

The respondents are also asked whether they agree or disagree with such statements as: “A person who will not testify in their own self-defense is probably guilty,” “If a group of persons are charged with a crime and later charges against some of them are dropped, then those still charged are probably guilty,” and “If the prosecution goes to the trouble of bringing someone to trial, the person is probably guilty.”

None of those surveyed will be potential jurors because the sample was drawn from people who had already served as jurors in the Central Superior Court District in the past six months.

“We weren’t trying to hide the fact (that the survey was for Buckey), but we were trying to keep the results from being skewed,” Gits said.

By the end of last week, about 300 responses had been received, Butler said. He said he would be comfortable drawing conclusions on the basis on another 100 returns, or about 40%.

Butler said he has conducted many such studies both within and without the university on a variety of topics. “I’m part of the university, and these surveys are part of my research,” he explained. “But in hindsight, it (the use of university stationery) has made me feel a little uncomfortable. . . . The question (about its appropriateness) has never been raised before.”

Butler emphasized that no university time or funds are involved, although campus computers are being used to analyze the results. Most of the money will go to half a dozen graduate students who are assisting in the study. Butler said he will get about $700 and expects that project director JoEllan Dimitrius will receive a little more.

‘Public Information’

He said Gits had told him the research was “just to get ideas about how people felt about the case,” not to support an argument for a change of venue. Whatever the findings, “I treat it as public information, and my plan would be to use it for (professional) publication,” Butler said.

Gits, however, insists that the findings are “confidential” and will be used only if they are judged beneficial to the defense.

A UC Riverside spokesman said Tuesday that the university is deciding “whether university policies were violated and whether remedial action should be taken,” such as a letter to all those who received the questionnaire explaining that the research is not being conducted under the aegis of the university but is the work of a private consultant.

“Butler (now) believes it was an unwise use of university stationery, and I agree with him,” said John Chappell, director of university relations.

In a separate action earlier this week, Gits’ co-counsel, Daniel Davis, who represents Raymond Buckey, sought to disqualify Judge Roger Boren from hearing the case, should it go to trial here as scheduled.

Judge’s Bias Alleged

Davis’ request for a hearing on the issue alleges that Boren is biased against the defendants because he permitted parents of McMartin students to make “inflammatory” statements in court, because he ordered defense attorneys seeking to interview witnesses to identify themselves, and because he received “communications” about the case from fellow Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Williams III before being assigned to the case.

Williams is the father of a child who attended the McMartin school and was a witness in the case, and Davis’ motion suggests that Deputy Dist. Atty. Lael Rubin “may have had . . . an intimate relationship” with Williams and communicated with Boren through him. Both Rubin and Williams have denied the charge.