Advertisement

Former Judge Accuses D.A.’s Office of Vindictiveness in Pursuing Case

Share
Times Staff Writer

A former judge, Joanne Harrold, on Monday accused the district attorney’s office of “vindictiveness” in pursuing criminal charges against her in a dispute over her residency in the 1982 election. She asked that the charges be dismissed, but also asked in a separate motion that a special prosecutor be appointed.

Harrold, scheduled to go to trial next week on two misdemeanor charges, also threatened to make an issue of candidate declarations from other officeholders, including Sheriff Brad Gates and Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

Harrold’s attorney, James A. Stotler, said later: “We are not accusing anyone of filing a false declaration.” But Stotler said he wants to see the district attorney’s records on these candidates to see if Harrold was singled out for prosecution.

Advertisement

Harrold’s motion seeking dismissal states that the prosecution against her has been “marked from its inception by vindictiveness and discrimination.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Maury Evans calmly responded to Harrold’s charges: “In my judgment, we are not being vindictive; we are not being discriminatory.”

Harrold easily won the June, 1982, election to retain her seat. But the election was thrown out, and she was removed from the bench after Superior Court Judge Ronald E. Owen found that she had lied about living in Orange County at the time she filed her declaration. While Harrold had title to her grandmother’s $2-million home in Newport Beach, Owen found that Harrold actually lived in Riverside County at the time.

In January, 1983, the county grand jury indicted Harrold on one felony count of filing a false declaration and one misdemeanor count of backdating a deed to her grandmother’s home. Harrold’s husband, John Saporito, was also indicted on the misdemeanor count.

The charges were thrown out by then-Superior Court Judge Bruce W. Sumner in 1984. But the district attorney’s office appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal and got the charges reinstated.

The felony charge against Harrold was reduced to a misdemeanor last November by Central Municipal Judge Jacquelyn D. Thomason.

Advertisement

Harrold has been in private practice since losing her judgeship. She is the trial attorney for Thomas F. Maniscalco, accused of masterminding a triple slaying in Westminster. Maniscalco has repeatedly asked that she remain his attorney despite facing a trial herself.

The names of Gates and Dornan came up Monday when Stotler asked that prosecutor Evans make any files on those two officials available to him. Gates was investigated in the 1986 election because he changed residences that year. But he was cleared by the state attorney general’s office of any criminal wrongdoing.

Harrold’s motion to dismiss gave no specifics about why she believed the district attorney’s office was being vindictive.

Harrold has chosen not to discuss her pending trial with the news media. Her attorney, Stotler, started to discuss the motion after court but then decided to wait.

Central Municipal Judge James P. Gray noted in court Monday that Stotler did not have a statement of facts to back up his motion to dismiss. Stotler said he would provide a statement by the time the motion is heard on Wednesday.

Motions seeking removal of the district attorney’s office from a case are rarely granted by Orange County judges unless the district attorney’s office itself agrees it has a conflict.

Advertisement

In cases where the county prosecutor is removed, the case is automatically referred to the attorney general’s office. But in this case, Harrold has asked that the attorney general’s office also be removed. That would mean a special prosecutor would have to be appointed if she were to win.

Stotler explained in court papers that it was the attorney general’s office that investigated Gates’ residency in his 1986 reelection, and failed to file any charges. The motion against the attorney general was filed, Stotler said, so that the case can proceed if an examination of the attorney general’s files on the Gates investigation is unsatisfactory to Harrold’s defense.

Advertisement