Judge Refuses to Dismiss Orly Lapin Child Kidnap Case

The judge in the Orly Lapin child kidnap case, accused by the defense of wearing “blinders,” ruled Monday that prosecutors did not adversely affect her defense by withholding negative information about her ex-husband, Santa Ana surgeon Ron Lapin.

After testimony in the three-week trial ended Monday in a Santa Ana courtroom, Superior Court Judge David H. Brickner denied a defense request that charges be dismissed.

Orly Lapin, a 32-year-old actress and former Israeli beauty queen, is charged with two counts of child kidnaping for taking her two young children in July, 1987, when they were in her ex-husband’s care by court order. She claims that he was molesting their 3-year-old daughter, and that she had to run away to protect the children.

The 48-year-old surgeon--noted in medical circles for his success at surgery without blood transfusions, which is popular with religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses--has denied the allegations. Prosecutors rebutted Monday by introducing a character witness for the doctor.

But Orly Lapin’s claims were supported by a former baby-sitter for the doctor who came forward to testify after reading about the trial in a newspaper.

The baby-sitter had told district attorney’s investigators her suspicion of Lapin as a child molester eight months ago, when she filed a paternity suit against him. Orly Lapin’s attorney, John B. Horwitz, claims that prosecutors’ failure to give that information to the defense is grounds for dismissal of all charges.

But Judge Brickner disagreed.

Brickner told prosecutors Monday that they should have told the defense about the baby-sitter’s claims. But the judge described it as only “a little tiny piece” of information that he claimed was “mooted out” by the fact that the baby-sitter came forward and testified.

The former baby-sitter testified that she saw signs of the doctor sexually abusing the little girl by touching her private parts when bathing her and by having the child sleep naked with him in his bed.

The baby-sitter also alleges that she was raped by Lapin on several occasions and that her 2-month-old baby is the result of one of the rapes. The woman’s name is being withheld by The Times because of the allegations of rape.

Lapin, whose testimony preceded the baby-sitter’s, denies that he raped her. Through an attorney, Lapin does admit that he had sex with her on some occasions.

‘What He Really Fears . . . ‘

Lapin claims that his wife has made up the allegations of child molestation as a ploy to take the children away from him.

“What he really fears is that she will take the kids and run off to Israel with them and he will never see them again,” said his attorney, Dennis M. McNerney.

While prosecutors have not said directly whether they believe the doctor, they do claim that Orly Lapin is using the molestation claims in an attempt to discredit him. Prosecutors have also tried to discredit the baby-sitter’s testimony.

Monday, prosecutors put on the witness stand a registered nurse and close friend of the doctor, Jeanne Jones, who said the baby-sitter seemed to idolize the doctor.

Jones said she never saw an atmosphere of fear in the household, as described by the baby-sitter.

“I knew she was not fearful, there were no problems. The word rape never came out,” Jones testified.

“Isn’t it true your purpose in coming here was to try to destroy (the baby-sitter’s) testimony?” Horwitz asked. Jones denied it.

At one point, when Horwitz asked about her own relationship with Dr. Lapin, and how many times she had spent the night at his home, Jones answered: “You’re trying to make something dirty out of this. I’m not on trial here.”

The baby-sitter’s testimony remained a key issue long after the jury left for the day.

Horwitz wanted Brickner to dismiss the case because the prosecution had not given the defense several pieces of information--primarily news about the baby-sitter’s allegations.

The baby-sitter’s paternity suit was filed against Dr. Lapin with the district attorney’s office in January. Notes on her interview with an investigator show that she mentioned that she had suspicions that Lapin had sexually abused his daughter.

When Deputy Dist. Atty. Kenneth O. Chinn took over the Orly Lapin prosecution, he was made aware of that paternity suit and was told that the baby-sitter had claimed rape. But Chinn said he was unaware of the child-molestation allegations and deliberately did not read that file because it was confidential.

But defense attorney Horwitz claimed that Chinn feared that he might find something he would have to tell the defense about.

Under California discovery laws, the prosecution must turn over any evidence it has against a defendant or any evidence it knows about that might help a defendant’s case.

Judge Dismisses Arguments

Horwitz said he would never have known that the baby-sitter was available to support his client’s child-molestation claims had she not read about the trial and come forward.

But Brickner appeared unimpressed.

The rape information was irrelevant, the judge said, because Orly Lapin took the children before any alleged rape occurred. The judge asked Horwitz to go through each item the prosecution failed to turn over--such as one police officer’s personal notes--and one by one, the judge explained it as either an irrelevant or harmless error.

What upset Horwitz, he claimed later, was that it should be the prosecutor arguing those points, not the judge.

“The court has made the argument for the (district attorney); I do not think it has been a fair process or an accurate process,” Horwitz told the court.

The judge shrugged.

Horwitz then accused the judge of wearing “blinders” and deliberately trying to make the undisclosed information appear “as insignificant as possible.”

The judge shrugged again.

The judge agreed that Chinn should have educated himself about the paternity suit so he would “know all the players involved” in the kidnaping trial. But he also defended Chinn’s attempt at scrupulous conduct by not looking at the confidential file.