Parents Say Ex-Prosecutor Sold Out to Hollywood : Conduct in McMartin Case Called ‘Criminal’ in Plea for State Investigation

Outraged parents of child witnesses in the McMartin Pre-School molestation case, speaking out for the first time, said they will ask state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp today to investigate former prosecutor Glenn Stevens, along with a film-making team, for criminal and unethical conduct.

They accuse Stevens of selling out to the defense and Hollywood, by conspiring with film makers Abby and Myra Mann to obstruct justice for purposes of monetary gain, and by providing information to the defense, which for a former prosecutor may be grounds for disbarment.

The Manns are planning a movie about the case, built around the character of Stevens as an ambitious young prosecutor caught up in a witch hunt, a deputy district attorney whose increasing doubts about the guilt of the people he is prosecuting causes him to put his career on the line.

Statements Stevens made directly to defense attorneys and in taped interviews for the movie project conducted by the Manns, who were later hired as “investigators” by the defense, are the basis of a defense motion to dismiss the charges or to remove the district attorney as prosecutor.

“People see Glenn as a hero, when what he (has done is) criminal,” said one mother, who like the others asked that her name not be used because her child is an alleged victim. “Stevens and the Manns have exploited the children’s abuse. . . . As testifying families, we’ve kept our mouths shut. But after taking so much for so long, we’re fed up.”

Criminal Acts Denied

Both Stevens and the Manns denied Monday that their actions were criminal or motivated by anything other than an interest in getting at the truth of what happened in the McMartin case.

“I’m sorry for the parents,” said Stevens’ lawyer, Robert Harris, “but they’re meddling in something that is quite legal and technical.”

Ten of the 11 testifying families are represented by attorney Greg Mooney, who prepared the formal request to Van de Kamp. They said they are acting as a group for the first time, having stayed in the background while parents of McMartin students no longer involved in the case spoke out, because they are united in their outrage and determination to proceed to trial.

In a meeting Monday, they pointed to their frustration with a “60 Minutes” television broadcast which they said portrayed the case as a witch-hunt and ignored the children’s court testimony. They said they were upset by Stevens’ leaks to the press last fall of dissension in the district attorney’s office and his doubts about the strength of the case.

And they said they are furious over his latest about-face--in which he has provided information to the defense and proclaimed the innocence of the two remaining defendants, Ray Buckey and his mother, Peggy McMartin Buckey, who are charged with 101 counts of child molestation and conspiracy involving 13 students at their Manhattan Beach nursery school.

Although the pre-school’s founder and six former teachers were ordered to stand trial after an 18-month preliminary hearing, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner decided to drop charges against five, citing “incredibly weak” evidence.

The parents said the latest events have stunned their children.

“Mom, does that mean he’s on their side?” a 10-year-old asked his mother after learning that Stevens no longer believes the children.

“Mama, wasn’t Glenn my lawyer?” asked another.

An incredulous 8-year-old girl said, “I can’t believe it. He doesn’t believe the children.”

Concern for Truth

In a telephone interview late Monday, Stevens said his actions were “absolutely not” criminal but rather concerned with bringing out what he sees as the truth. “Everybody is ignoring the truth--which is the problems inherent in the case,” he said, noting that the tapes of his conversations with the Manns had been turned over both to the attorney general’s office and to the defense.

“I’m not saying the children lied,” he said. “But the way they were handled caused them to tell the stories they told. I’m not blaming the kids.”

Attorney Harris, who represents Stevens, characterized the allegations as “nonsense.” He pointed out that the decision to make the tapes public was the Manns’, not Stevens’. The former prosecutor “didn’t go over to the defense,” Harris said, but met with them “in the interest of truth and justice” after the tapes had been turned over to the attorney general and the McMartin defense team.

Reached separately late Monday, Abby Mann said his decision to release the tapes came only after he conferred with two attorneys who convinced him that not to do so would be an obstruction of justice.

Sitting on ‘Bombshell’

He said he initially contacted the defense to “check out” what Stevens had told him, and that as a writer, it would have been much better for him to sit on the information he had and “explode the bombshell” later.

“The evidence is not frivolous; it concerns the withholding of vital information,” he said. “I don’t know how valid it is. . . . I welcome an investigation, and the more the better.”

In a four-page letter to be hand-delivered to Van de Kamp today, attorney Mooney contends that Stevens and the Manns violated a section of the California Penal Code by conspiring to provide taped interviews to the defense “for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the trial in a manner that would serve their monetary interest”--because the success of a movie or book, in their view, depends on the defendants’ being acquitted.

In addition, Mooney claims, Stevens has violated a section of the state Business and Professions Code that prohibits a prosecutor from directly or indirectly advising or taking part in the defense of the same case, or from receiving “any valuable consideration” from such action.

Lawyer’s Argument

“Stevens indirectly advised the defendants by providing information to the defense through the Manns, both before and after the Manns became investigators for Mr. Buckey’s attorney,” Mooney wrote.

“Stevens has indirectly aided the defense by making public statements that he believes the defendants to be innocent. These statements radically differ from Stevens’ prior belief that the (two) defendants were guilty. Therefore, it would appear that (these assertions are) part of an ongoing campaign to influence the outcome of the trial in a manner designed to foster the financial success of the Mann/Stevens book and movie venture.

“Stevens apparently has received a ‘valuable consideration,’ i.e. a movie and book contract from the Manns who are now employed as investigators by Buckey’s attorney, upon an understanding or agreement.”

The families are asking that Stevens be prosecuted and that the results of the investigation be turned over to the State Bar for disbarment proceedings against him.