Walsh Aided by 2 Rulings in Contra Case : But Judge Says Problems Remain on Access to Secret Records

A federal judge in the Iran-Contra conspiracy case Monday handed a pair of pretrial victories to prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh, rejecting a broad request by defense attorneys for extremely sensitive documents and later denying motions by two defendants for dismissal of their indictments.

But U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell acknowledged that problems continue to plague the case in areas involving access by all four defendants to secret records that they need for their defense.

Gesell, asking lawyers on both sides to help resolve the issue, said sternly at a court hearing: “I’m interested in solutions, not delays.”

Immunized Testimony

The judge cannot set a trial date until he settles such disputes over access to records, as well as problems arising from immunized testimony that three of the defendants gave to Congress last year.

As he had last month, the judge expressed serious doubts about whether the defendants could receive a fair trial on charges that they conspired to defraud the government in selling arms to Iran in 1985 and 1986 and diverting the profits to Nicaragua’s rebels.

“What’s causing the trouble, as I see it, is the conspiracy counts, because they relate to a wide course of conduct,” Gesell said. They may involve a discussion of past covert operations or other classified matters to determine the defendants’ motives and intentions, he said.

May Have to Dismiss Case

“I’ve got to find out if the case can go,” he said, referring to the fact that he may have to dismiss the case if the government refuses to permit disclosure of sensitive matters that are deemed necessary to the defense.

Indicted last March were former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, his top aide, Oliver L. North, and two private businessmen, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert A. Hakim.

Walsh said that defense lawyers “are greatly exaggerating the problem” and that the conspiracy count is essential “as a unifying function in the indictment.”

The broad defense motion for documents, which Gesell rejected, would have encompassed such operations as U.S. intelligence-gathering in Iran, efforts to free U.S. hostages in Lebanon and other top-secret projects.

Few Cleared for Review

Walsh told Gesell that such highly sensitive records are irrelevant to the trial and the CIA said in court papers last week that few people other than President Reagan were cleared to review such extraordinary material.

But in ruling against the defendants, Gesell said he was sympathetic that “when a man is accused of a crime, he ought to be able to get on the stand and tell his side of the story if he wants to.”

Gesell said he was reluctant to censor a defendant’s testimony, “although I really expect they are going to spill all over with classified information” if they try to explain their roles in past covert operations.

Gesell rejected dismissal motions filed by attorneys for Secord and Hakim. Thomas C. Green, Secord’s attorney, argued that Walsh unfairly had kept Secord from telling his full story to the grand jury that indicted him because Secord wanted to cite information contained in the immunized testimony that North and Poindexter had given to Congress.

Refusal Called Proper

Michael Bromwich, an attorney on Walsh’s staff, said that the refusal was proper because “we felt it was necessary for the validity of the whole case not to present immunized testimony to the grand jury.”

Under a grant of congressional immunity, a witness cannot be prosecuted for what he tells Congress and some restrictions also apply to the use of such testimony by defendants.

Hakim’s attorney, Lawrence H. Wechsler, joined in Secord’s arguments and said that Hakim’s indictment also should be dismissed because Walsh had put restrictions on his access to classified documents on grounds that he did not have a security clearance as high as the other defendants.