NOW Urges New Inquiry Into Alleged Rape by Lawyer Mitchelson

The California chapter of the National Organization for Women on Thursday urged a new investigation into an accusation that palimony attorney Marvin Mitchelson raped a client.

NOW state coordinator Shireen Miles said her group voted at its convention last weekend to ask state prosecutors to provide a lawyer for the Los Angeles County Grand Jury so that panel can conduct a new investigation.

The grand jury--a group of 23 lay people whose yearlong terms expire at the end of this month--has already voted to investigate the case. But it has been frustrated by its inability to obtain the services of a lawyer to conduct the investigation.

Normally, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office provides the grand jury with a lawyer. But that office has already investigated the rape allegation and declined to charge Mitchelson, saying that there was insufficient evidence that a crime occurred.

The state attorney general’s office then looked into the case at the behest of the alleged victim, but decided not to override the district attorney’s decision.

Grand jurors took up the case at the request of the alleged victim, who charged that authorities were giving Mitchelson preferential treatment.

They voted last month to ask the state attorney general’s office to provide them with a lawyer so they could investigate. But state prosecutors have not responded to that request.

Miles said in a prepared statement Thursday that the “case against Mr. Mitchelson is fairly typical of what happens to women who are abused by professionals in whom they have placed their trust.”

Mitchelson has denied any wrongdoing. His office on Thursday referred a reporter to his attorney, Howard Weitzman, who, when told of Miles’ comments, said: “The recommendations by the NOW organization I find to be quite irresponsible from a group that is normally very responsible. . . . Basically, the NOW organization is making judgments about what may or may not have taken place when professionals (state and local prosecutors), independent of each other, have chosen to disbelieve the allegations.”

Contending that “the grand jury’s function is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct when they’re brought to them by prosecuting agencies,” Weitzman said that “the matter should be put to rest and Marvin Mitchelson should be allowed to get on with his life.”

The rape charge was leveled at Mitchelson by Kristen Barrett-Whitney, who said she sought him out in late 1985 to represent her in a palimony lawsuit against Chase Revel, the founder of Entrepreneur magazine, with whom she said she had lived for parts of 1984 and 1985. In a suit she later filed, she alleged that Revel had sexually abused her. Revel denied the allegations.

At a press conference Thursday, Barrett-Whitney was flanked by Miles, her current attorney, Jan Norman, and her two therapists, psychiatrist Gary L. Shepherd and psychologist Jacqueline C. Bouhoutsos.

Barrett-Whitney told reporters that Mitchelson raped her in his Century City office. She said she thought that he was leading her to a conference room when he opened the door to a bathroom and fell to the floor feigning a heart attack. She said when she tried to help him, he raped her.

The district attorney’s office, in rejecting the case, noted that Barrett-Whitney had reported hearing workers in Mitchelson’s office during the alleged rape, but that, when interviewed, the workers reported they had not heard her.

2 Other Suits

The district attorney’s report on the case also noted that Barrett-Whitney is suing two other health professionals--a Chicago psychiatrist and a Phoenix dentist--claiming they sexually abused her over long periods.

Weitzman noted these other suits Thursday and declared that Barrett-Whitney “would appear to be a professional victim.”

However, her psychiatrist, Shepherd, said those cases do not involve rape allegations. He said Barrett-Whitney has “very significant psychiatric problems” that make her extremely child-like, trusting and vulnerable, but he also said he has treated her for more than three years and found her to be truthful.

Bouhoutsos, who said she specializes in treating women who have been sexually victimized by professional men they consult, said it is “not at all unusual . . . to have repeated victimizations.” To use them to challenge a person’s truthfulness shows “an amazing ignorance,” she said.

‘Outraged’ by Report

Shepherd said he is “outraged” by the district attorney’s report because it contains a “gross distortion” of remarks he made.

The report says he said he talked to Barrett-Whitney by telephone on the night the alleged rape occurred and she told him specifically that nothing was wrong.

Shepherd said that his remarks were taken out of context “and it seems to me it was intentional. I’m outraged as a citizen.”

He said the thrust of his remarks was that he had talked with her and sensed something was wrong, but that she wouldn’t tell him what it was.

District attorney’s office spokesman Al Albergate said: “We are unaware of any distortions.”

In its report on the case, the district attorney’s office cited “ambiguous” statements Mitchelson made when the Los Angeles Police Department secretly tape-recorded a phone call between him and Barrett-Whitney.

Conversation Transcript

According to a transcript of that conversation, Mitchelson at one point denies having abused Barrett-Whitney. But at another point he says, “I understand. I understand,” immediately after she says, “I emotionally can’t have situations like the bathroom.”

At another point he says: “Now without acknowledging that anything happened anyplace, I don’t intend in any way to become personally involved. . . . I just wanted to help you and represent you, try to settle the case. . . . And I can tell you something. You know, without referring to you or me, you know, there are people, I mean, let’s take a doctor--a doctor may be an excellent surgeon. Maybe he even becomes involved with the patient. . . . But he’s still able to--he’s a great surgeon. He’s able to perform a cataract. I’m a lawyer. I know what I’m doing. I think I do. I’m able to settle cases.”

Last week, in an unusual estrangement from the district attorney’s office, grand jurors voted to decline an offer to hear the district attorney’s point of view on the Mitchelson case, according to two sources familiar with the jury’s secret deliberations.