Closing Arguments : Prosecution Ends Case in Ex-Registrar’s Trial

Arguing that former San Diego County Registrar of Voters Ray Ortiz “orchestrated” the falsification of printing contract invoices to illegally obtain taxpayers’ money for his personal use, a prosecutor on Monday urged a Superior Court jury to convict Ortiz of theft charges.

In his closing arguments, Deputy Dist. Atty. Douglas Gregg charged that Ortiz and an executive of a Los Angeles-based printing firm participated in a scheme in which the company, at Ortiz’s direction, submitted false bills to the county to recoup thousands of dollars in unauthorized expenses, including several trips taken by Ortiz and his associates.

“Mr. Ortiz was the orchestrator, the main person . . . in all these illegal transactions,” Gregg told the jury. “This is not what we as citizens expect from our public officials. We expect better.”

Beginning his closing arguments late Monday afternoon, Ortiz’s attorney, Merle Schneidewind, charged that the key prosecution witness--Lynn Kienle, vice president for sales of Jeffries Banknote Co.--lied to conceal his own improprieties, not those of Ortiz, in regard to the election data printing contract between the firm and the county.

Jury to Get Case

Schneidewind is expected to conclude his closing arguments today, after which Gregg will have a final opportunity to rebut his remarks. The case likely will go to the jury late today or early Wednesday.

Ortiz, who had been registrar for seven years until his resignation last fall, was indicted last year on 27 counts of grand theft, misappropriation of public funds and making false entries in public records. According to prosecutors, Ortiz, 52, stole $7,300 from the county in six transactions between 1984 and 1986, and an additional $4,000 from Jeffries.

Lance Gough, an Escondido elections consultant, also is on trial on one count of grand theft, while a third defendant, Maria Caldera, a longtime friend of Ortiz, will be tried separately later on three counts of grand theft.

At the heart of the case is the prosecution’s contention that Ortiz diverted money to himself via falsified contracts that he directed Kienle to submit to the county. Funds that actually went toward trips that Ortiz and his associates made to New Orleans, Chicago and Redding, and for Ortiz’s personal use, were “passed through” to the county on invoices under categories such as “ballot generation” or “mock elections”--phraseology that Kienle testified had been suggested by Ortiz.

The defense has acknowledged that Ortiz was reimbursed by Jeffries for some trips to election conferences, but argues that there was no attempt to conceal those funds and that Ortiz’s motivation was simply to save the county money. In addition, Schneidewind contends that the consulting fees paid to Ortiz’s associates covered legitimate work.

Gregg, however, strongly disputed the defense’s position in his closing remarks.

Sees ‘Personal Interest’

“(Ortiz) says this was done to save the taxpayers money, but his interest was personal,” Gregg said. The prosecutor argued that Ortiz used the illegally diverted funds from the printing firm to enhance his own reputation by frequently attending election conventions, as well as to impress colleagues and friends.

On one occasion, Gregg added, Ortiz “double-dipped” by accepting money from a social service research firm for expenses that had already been paid for by Jeffries.

But both Schneidewind and Gough’s attorney, Buford Wiley, sought to undermine Kienle’s credibility by noting that he had testified under a grant of immunity.

“Mr. Gregg describes Mr. Kienle as a victim . . . in all this,” Schneidewind said. “Well, Mr. Kienle is the first victim I’ve ever seen who’s needed immunity.”

Earlier in the trial, Schneidewind argued that Kienle is lying because of his anger over Ortiz’s cancellation of a contract that cost him more than $100,000 in commissions.

Schneidewind also focused on inconsistencies in Kienle’s testimony, pointing out that even the Jeffries executive could not specify how certain invoices had been falsified to recover some of the funds allegedly diverted to Ortiz.

“Not one piece of evidence supports his bare allegation,” Schneidewind said. “There is only Mr. Kienle saying, ‘Maybe, I think so, it could be, possibly . . . passed through here.’ ”

‘Classic Defense’ Seen

Gregg, though, argued that such comments merely represented “the classic defense . . . of pointing at someone else.”

Wiley, meanwhile, repeatedly accused Kienle of having “performed a Great Carnac act”--a reference to a character played by comedian Johnny Carson who supposedly can predict the answers to questions that he has never seen.

Stressing that Gough is accused only of illegally receiving a $1,000 consulting fee, Wiley noted that the invoice on which Kienle claims that payment was hidden was paid weeks before Kienle had even received a bill from Gough.

“That’s preposterous,” Wiley said. “Mr. Kienle . . . did his Carnac act.” Wiley added that Gough was rightfully owed the $1,000 to cover his expenses at a Chicago convention at which he worked in Jeffries’ behalf.

Wiley also clearly attempted to distance his client from Ortiz.

“If there was something going on between Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Kienle . . . don’t impugn Mr. Gough,” Wylie told the jury. “This is no package deal.”