Judge Scolds Iran-Contra Prosecutors

The judge in the Iran-Contra scandal today scolded prosecutors for playing a “cat and mouse game” and held out the threat that there may be no trial if they do not quickly turn over secret documents and information and prove to him they have a case.

Claiming failure to do so will result in a “constitutional question of major proportions,” U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell took firm rein on the first pretrial conference between the office of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh and attorneys for former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and two others indicted in the case.

Won’t Waste Time

“I want to know if we have a case that can be tried,” Gesell said. “I want to have some sense that I am not wasting two to three months of my time listening to a trial that is certain to be aborted before it’s over.”

Earlier, Gesell pointedly told prosecutors he wants to proceed quickly and moved to set a hearing date for Walsh to prove he has sufficient evidence against the defendants--evidence acquired independent of testimony three of them gave Congress last summer with grants of limited immunity from prosecution.

Gesell told prosecutor Herbert Stern, “Show the defendants what your case is. That’s the way to get this trial going. . . . They have a right to know what the case is.”

Four Charged

Besides Poindexter and North, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and his business partner, arms dealer Albert A. Hakim, were charged March 16 with conspiring to defraud the government of up to $18 million from U.S. arms sales to Iran.

All but Poindexter were charged with profiting in the diversion scheme that enriched the Nicaraguan rebels and private Swiss bank accounts.

All four have pleaded innocent.

Gesell, who oversaw many court proceedings of the Watergate scandal more than a decade ago, also was concerned today that prosecutors were hesitant to turn over up to 200,000 classified documents in the case.

Access to Papers Required

If they do not, he said, “then I have a constitutional question of major proportions. We simply cannot try a classified documents case that will never work. . . . Those people should have access to their papers.”

It will also be up to Walsh’s office--and Stern particularly, since he was hired specifically to handle the immunity question--to assure the judge that the case can go forward and that the charges were brought completely independent of any of the protected testimony, Gesell said.