Two Requests Among Many : President Must Decide on Hearst, Hammer Pardons

With barely three weeks left in his term, President Reagan must decide whether to delve into deeply controversial events that riveted the nation’s attention more than a decade ago and pardon Los Angeles industrialist Armand Hammer and newspaper heiress Patty Hearst.

They are among many other, mostly lesser-known, figures who have petitioned the White House for pardons.

Veterans of previous administrations have cautioned the Reagan team that it would face “inordinate pressure,” in the words of one senior White House official, to grant presidential pardons in the period leading up to Jan. 20, when Reagan leaves office.

“We’ve been counseled by Republicans and Democrats alike not to go too freely in that regard,” the official said.

Although senior Reagan assistants say such pressure has not yet been felt, they recognize that the period between the election and the inauguration of a new President offers a brief window in which the outgoing President can act on potentially unpopular matters--such as pardons--without having to pay a political price.

“It’s a unique time, when a President has concluded a very successful presidency. He’s in a position to take some heat for things and not have a significant impact on his presidency,” the White House official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This, he said, is recognized by “people of lots of stripes and by lots of longtime acquaintances of the President” who want to make sure “that their plea is heard.”

“Everybody and his brother who’s got a pardon application pending wants to have a shot at him . . . to have one shot at the big man,” the official said.

In addition, the official said, it would not be surprising to find that aides to President-elect George Bush might appreciate Reagan’s taking action on the more controversial pardon requests to help Bush avoid possibly disastrous mine fields early in his presidency--although no such pressure from the Bush organization has been reported.

For President Gerald R. Ford, the pardon of Richard M. Nixon, issued at the start of his presidency, was perhaps the most controversial action he took in the White House and contributed to his loss of the presidency to Jimmy Carter in 1976.

‘Quite a Number of Cases’

David C. Stephenson, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, said Wednesday that “there are quite a number of cases waiting to be acted on” at the White House. Although emphasizing that he has no way of knowing for certain, Stephenson said he believes that the applications will be granted or denied before Reagan leaves office and thus will not be left hanging for Bush.

A President may act on his own without any application for clemency. Usually, though, clemency applications go to Stephenson, who investigates their merits, including contacting the prosecutors and the sentencing judges and asking their views on granting clemency. Stephenson’s recommendations, along with supporting letters, then are forwarded to the Justice Department’s No. 3 official, the associate attorney general, who reviews them and passes them on to the White House counsel’s office with his recommendation.

Executive clemency, a practice rooted in English tradition and written into the U.S. Constitution, comes in two forms--pardons and commutations. Pardons generally are granted to ex-convicts who have completed their prison sentences and have become productive members of society. Pardons symbolize forgiveness and can restore a felon’s civil rights. As in the Nixon case, they can also be issued before any legal action has occurred.

Sentences Cut Short

A presidential commutation is generally a much more immediate form of relief. Commutations cut short the sentences of convicts by releasing them from prison or by making them eligible for parole at an earlier date than was scheduled.

Reagan has been tightfisted in granting executive clemency during his two terms. From 1981 through the beginning of this month, Reagan granted 361 pardons and 13 commutations, significantly fewer than the 534 pardons and 32 commutations that Carter issued in only one term in office. The Nixon totals from 1969 until he left office in 1974 were 863 pardons and 63 commutations.

Denials tell pretty much the same story. Reagan turned down 931 pardon applicants and 310 seeking commutations through the beginning of this month, whereas Carter rejected 638 pardons and 675 commutations.

Of the pardon decisions Reagan faces, only a few deal with well-known figures. And, in some cases, Reagan’s intentions have been clearly signaled.

Against North Pardon

Although a highly publicized campaign has been organized on behalf of Oliver L. North and to a lesser extent on behalf of John M. Poindexter, Reagan has indicated that he does not favor pardons in their cases.

North, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who was an aide on the National Security Council staff, faces charges of conspiring to defraud the government by diverting government money raised in the sale of U.S. weapons to Iran to the rebels seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Poindexter, a retired rear admiral, was the President’s national security adviser at the time and is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing Congress and making false statements to cover up the alleged conspiracy.

North’s trial, postponed several times, is scheduled to begin at the end of January. Poindexter would be tried later.

Reagan has not said in public whether he would pardon the two, but he has given strong indications that he would not, saying on several occasions that the legal process should be allowed to run its course and that issuing a pardon before a trial would force those pardoned to lead their lives with an unanswered question of guilt or innocence hanging over them.

In addition, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said recently: “The President has not discussed pardons, formally or informally, with anyone.”

In another sensitive case, First Lady Nancy Reagan spoke out recently, disclosing that Michael K. Deaver and Lyn Nofziger, two former White House aides who have had longstanding friendships with the Reagans, had told the President that they would not accept pardons if offered.

Mrs. Reagan said in an interview with United Press International that Nofziger had told Reagan that a pardon “could be a presumption of guilt” and that he does not think he did anything wrong. Deaver, she said, also informed Reagan that he would reject a pardon.

Nofziger was convicted of violating the Ethics in Government Act in connection with lobbying activities after he left a senior White House position in 1982. He was sentenced to a 90-day prison term and a $30,000 fine but has served no time pending appeal.

Deaver was placed on three years’ probation, fined $100,000 and ordered to perform 1,500 hours of public service after being convicted of lying to a congressional subcommittee and a grand jury about lobbying contacts he made with senior Administration officials after leaving his job as deputy White House chief of staff in 1985.

Hearst was sentenced to seven years in federal prison in connection with an armed robbery at a bank in San Francisco. She maintains that she was brainwashed by the radical Symbionese Liberation Army after she was kidnaped by members of the group in 1974. She was arrested 19 months later.

Hearst was released from prison on Feb. 1, 1979, after serving 23 months of her sentence, which was commuted by Carter. As governor of California shortly before Hearst was released from prison, Reagan urged that she be granted executive clemency. A pardon would wipe her slate clean.

Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, said his office opposed a pardon for Tanya--the name Hearst used during the period when she was kidnaped--as did Dave Bancroft, the prosecutor who handled her case. Bancroft could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Stephenson, the Justice Department official, refused to disclose what action he had recommended in the pardon application by Hammer, who pleaded guilty in March, 1976, to three misdemeanor charges that he had made illegal campaign contributions in 1972 to Nixon.

Hammer’s plea for a pardon “has been pending for a number of years,” Stephenson said. “All I can say is that it’s a difficult case, rather complex.”

In October, 1975, Hammer, the top executive of Occidental Petroleum Corp., pleaded guilty to illegally disguising $54,000 in contributions to Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign. During the court session, Hammer initially balked at then-Washington Chief U.S. District Judge William B. Jones’ insistence that he acknowledge the possibility that he could face a maximum three-year prison sentence for the misdemeanor crimes.

But, after conferring with his attorneys, Hammer reversed his position and said he understood that he could draw the maximum three-year sentence. Details of the hidden contributions became known to Watergate prosecutors in 1974, when former Montana Gov. Tim Babcock pleaded guilty to helping Hammer make the secret contributions. Babcock, a former executive vice president of an Occidental Petroleum Corp. subsidiary, drew a four-month jail sentence.

Letter to Probation Officer

Two months after Hammer pleaded guilty, however, Jones threw out the plea and ruled that he must stand trial because of an Oct. 27, 1975, letter Hammer had written to his probation officer that Jones said had destroyed the “factual basis” for the guilty plea.

Hammer’s case then was transferred to federal court in Los Angeles after physicians warned that traveling to Washington for a court appearance could kill the industrialist, who was being treated for a heart ailment. In March, 1976, under threat of a felony indictment by then-Watergate special prosecutor Charles Ruff, Hammer reaffirmed his guilty plea to the three misdemeanor charges. Eventually, he was fined $3,000 and placed on a year’s probation.

But then, as Hammer recounts in his autobiography, “I set out to clear my name.” He contends that an investigation he had started turned up “exonerating evidence,” which is part of his plea for a pardon.

When contacted by the Justice Department, Ruff, now a defense attorney in private practice, said he took no position on the question of pardoning Hammer.

“It seemed to me that their (Hammer and his attorney, Bruce Kauffman’s) principal pitch was the great services” Hammer had performed for “the world” and that it was up to the President to make a judgment, Ruff said in an interview. Kauffman was unavailable for comment.

Ruff said that he also had been approached by “Dr. Hammer,” with whom he had “a candid and forthright discussion,” but that he still took no position.

Henry S. Ruth Jr., Ruff’s predecessor as Watergate special prosecutor, said he had been approached by Hammer and Kauffman about writing a letter on Hammer’s behalf urging that he be pardoned. Ruth said he had reviewed a written presentation Hammer and his lawyer gave him but decided against writing the letter.

Ruth said the President’s pardon power is “to take care of cases of injustice. I don’t see any injustice in any of the Watergate convictions.”

James Gerstenzang reported from Los Angeles and Ronald J. Ostrow reported from Washington.