Drop Young Trial, Judge Urged; U.S. Rests Case

As federal prosecutors rested their case Wednesday in the political corruption trial of former legislator Bruce E. Young, the defense moved immediately for a verdict of acquittal on grounds that the government has failed to prove any violations of state political reporting laws.

The government case against Young charges the former Democratic assemblyman from Norwalk with 28 counts of mail fraud in connection with failure to report income from former fireworks manufacturer W. Patrick Moriarty and from a Los Angeles cable television firm while championing legislation on their behalf.

He is also accused of mail fraud violations in the alleged laundering of campaign contributions from Moriarty to six Democratic Assembly candidates in 1982. Moriarty, the central figure in a continuing probe of political corruption in California, is serving a seven-year prison sentence.

In calling 28 witnesses during 13 days of testimony, the government established that a company called Young Thinking Inc., established by Young in 1981, did consulting work for both Moriarty and Falcon Communications during a period in which Young was crusading for pro-fireworks legislation and a bill to deregulate the cable television industry.

Among the benefits Young received for his consulting work were free use of a leased Ford Bronco provided by Moriarty and 22 monthly payments of $1,000 from Falcon, the cable television firm.

In their request to U.S. District Judge Dickran Tevrizian for a judgment of acquittal, however, Young’s lawyers, Alan Dressler and George Walker, argued that no government witness--including Moriarty--conclusively established that Young’s legislative activities were prompted by his financial ties to Moriarty and Falcon Communications.

The defense lawyers attacked the use of federal mail fraud statutes to prosecute Young in the absence of overwhelming proof that the former legislator violated state political reporting laws, which they described as “complex and vague.”

“In California, there is a complex and pervasive body of statutory and administrative standards which define defendant Young’s duties with regard to financial disclosure, conflict of interest and campaign reporting requirements,” Dressler wrote. “It is Mr. Young’s position that if he has made a good-faith effort to comply with these duties, then no state or federal law is violated.”

Dressler added in his motion to Tevrizian:

“It would violate fundamental concepts of due process and fair play to hold that conduct which in good faith conforms to the regulatory scheme may be considered illegal. In effect, the government is asserting that he should conform to some undefined higher standard of conduct than that required by the people of the State of California.”

Tevrizian set arguments on the motion for today. Although defense motions for acquittal are routine at the end of a prosecution case, they are granted by federal judges in Los Angeles only on rare occasions. Tevrizian has, however, criticized part of the prosecution case and has said that the trial highlights a need for reform in California’s political reporting laws.

As the defense prepared to present its version of the case, Walker disclosed Wednesday that he intends to call only one member of the Legislature as a witness--Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights), the Senate sponsor of the fireworks legislation carried by Young in the Assembly in 1981.

Walker, who originally submitted a possible witness list of 108 names, including a one-third of the 120-member state Legislature, had indicated in the last two weeks that the list would be cut substantially.

In an unusual move, Walker, who waived the right to make an opening statement at the start of the trial, also notified Tevrizian on Wednesday that he has no plans for an opening statement at the beginning of the defense case.

“If they (the jurors) don’t understand the case by this time, it would be a waste of time,” Walker said.

Several leading Los Angeles lawyers called Walker’s decision an “unusual” move in a case that revolves in part around Young’s motivations.

One said the move suggests that Walker may be unsure of the testimony of the witnesses he may call, including Young, if he testifies in his own behalf. Another said a possible reason for passing up the chance to make a speech to the jury might be to hide the direction of Young’s defense from prosecutors even at a relatively late stage in the trial.

One other lawyer praised the decision as a smart courtroom move, saying, “He probably just doesn’t want to bore the jury.”

Walker insisted there is “nothing unusual at all” about his decision and said it would be a “waste of time” to tell jurors what he believes they have already learned about the case through defense cross-examination of government witnesses.

“I don’t want the jury saying, ‘Come on, let’s get on with it,’ ” said Walker. “My feeling is the jury at this stage has already heard enough through cross-examination to see through a version which is only half the truth.”