Grand Juror Rips Judge, Prosecutors in Rape Case

A key member of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury has complained that state and local prosecutors and a judge may be improperly frustrating the panel’s efforts to investigate a rape accusation against famed palimony lawyer Marvin Mitchelson.

“What we’re really dealing with here, in my opinion, is a possible obstruction of the grand jury, which is supposed to be a totally independent body,” said Ralph Howe, the grand jury’s foreman pro tem and chairman of its criminal justice committee.

Howe said prosecutors and the judge are balking at providing the grand jury with an attorney that it needs to pursue the case.

But on Thursday the judge involved, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz, rejected the charge, saying that he had merely made it known that he was unwilling to help in a possible grand jury “witch hunt.”

‘Silliness’ Is Charged

The chief deputy district attorney, Gilbert I. Garcetti, termed the whole affair “silliness.” And Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Steve White said he was “not at liberty to discuss communications between the grand jury and us.”

Caught in the cross fire is Mitchelson. Earlier this year, he was informed that he would not be prosecuted. The district attorney’s office concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that a crime had been committed.

The alleged victim then took her case to the California attorney general’s office, alleging that the district attorney’s office had accorded Mitchelson preferential treatment.

After reviewing her complaint for two months, the attorney general’s office declined to override the district attorney’s decision.

Separate Complaints

Meanwhile, the grand jury entered the case because of separate complaints it had received from the alleged victim and her lawyer.

Grand jurors met informally with the alleged victim and with Los Angeles police detectives who had looked into the charge, Howe said.

Howe indicated that grand jurors became dissatisfied with the district attorney’s probe and asked the attorney general’s office to use the grand jury, which has subpoena power and operates in secret, to conduct a separate investigation.

“We’re not asking anyone to file charges,” Howe said. “We’re asking for someone to conduct an investigation under the auspices of the grand jury, where 23 (grand jurors) can sit and evaluate the evidence, all persons concerned can be subpoenaed in or invited in and we conduct it in our grand jury chambers in secret.

“If a person can’t get a response from the grand jury, where can they go? We’re kind of like the last place you go.”

In California, criminal charges can be brought by grand jury indictments or by complaints filed directly by prosecutors. In recent years, because of court decisions that have made indictments inconvenient for prosecutors, indictments have fallen into disuse and grand juries have been used almost exclusively as government watchdogs.

Grand jurors, who serve for a year, rely on attorneys for legal advice and questioning witnesses in the few criminal cases they hear. The attorneys usually come from the district attorney’s office, but laws allow the attorney general’s office or the county’s presiding judge to appoint special prosecutors.

Some deputy attorney generals, whom Howe declined to name, had remarked privately that they would have filed a case against Mitchelson had it been their decision to make, Howe said.

And Howe said he received encouragement, presumably from these deputy attorneys general, to make a formal request for the attorney general’s office to step into the case by providing an attorney for a grand jury probe.

Called to Meeting

Grand jurors were in the process of making such a request, Howe said, when he and grand jury foreman Edward Roseman, who declined to comment on the case, were summoned to a meeting in March by Munoz, supervising judge for the county’s criminal courts.

Howe, who said he was a retired Downey fire captain, said Munoz’s “opening statement was, ‘Was I trying to embarrass the district attorney?’ ”

Howe said he responded, “Was he (Munoz) trying to obstruct the operation of the grand jury? . . . I told him that maybe he was getting out of line, that there might be an unhealthy relationship between the district attorney’s office and the supervising judge.”

Munoz, who worked as a public defender before being named to the bench, said in an interview that he had no ties to the district attorney’s office and was not trying to obstruct anybody.

Wants Another Forum

But Munoz indicated that he believes the grand jury is the wrong forum to pursue the Mitchelson case, and that pursuing it in light of rejections by the district attorney’s office and the attorney general’s office seems pointless.

“God knows,” he said, “neither one of them (the district attorney’s office nor the attorney general’s office) is in favor of rapists.”

Asked if he planned to appoint a special prosecutor, he said no, and noted that he had not been asked for one. “I have no reason to suspect any (wrongdoing) here. . . . I’m not going to just authorize money so that somebody could possibly go out on a witch hunt.”

The grand jury’s request for an attorney from the attorney general’s office got no response for a month, Howe said. And when the response came, Howe said, he thought it was a run-around. The attorney general’s office told the grand jury that it should first ask the district attorney’s office.

Formal Request Made

So that same day the grand jury made the formal request to the district attorney’s office. That was turned down this week after 10 days, Howe said.

With the grand jury’s annual term set to expire June 30, Howe said, grand jurors have renewed their request of the attorney general’s office.

Meanwhile, Garcetti of the district attorney’s office said: “This is silliness. It’s an absolute waste of taxpayers’ expense to pursue the Mitchelson case. . . . We’re convinced, based on our investigation, that a crime did not occur. The attorney general reviewed all of our materials and has concluded it was not an abuse of discretion and agreed with our decision. . . .. There is no case here at all. . . . You would have to be crazy to prosecute this kind of a case.”

Pierce O’Donnell, the attorney for the alleged victim, said: “Something’s rotten in the Criminal Courts Building. That’s my conclusion.”

And Roseman, the grand jury foreman, said: “Grand jury business is not for public dissemination until the grand jury votes to issue a statement and I have no comment on this or any other issue. I’m the only spokesman for this grand jury and I’m not in a position to elaborate on Mr. Howe’s comments.”