Jury May Not Get to Weigh North Motives

Former White House aide Oliver L. North’s motives in the Iran-Contra scandal ranged from covering up previous lies and pro-Contra activities to avoiding charges of illegality and political embarrassment to the Reagan Administration, prosecutors in the case said Thursday.

But the jury will not be asked to decide the scaled-down charges remaining against North on the basis of his motives or the legality of the conduct he was covering up--thus limiting the classified information he should be allowed to introduce in his defense, the prosecutors said in a memorandum to U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell.

The memo, constituting the first discussion in court of North’s possible motives, was submitted to support the prosecution’s argument that he can be tried on the remaining 12 criminal counts against him without breaching national security.

Independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh asked Gesell Jan. 5 to drop the two central charges of conspiracy and theft against North, citing intelligence agency objections to the use of highly classified information in the case. Instead, Gesell, who has scheduled a hearing on the case today, delayed dismissing the counts until Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh takes responsibility for the decision not to release the classified information.

Thursday Walsh submitted under seal to Gesell a “declaration” by Thornburgh that presumably sought to satisfy the judge.

In his memo on the remaining 12 counts against North, Walsh said: “The government’s case no longer depends on proving that the proceeds of the Iranian arms sales constituted government property, or that by diverting those proceeds to the Contras, North embezzled them.

“The legality of the diversion is no longer an issue in this case and, as a result, evidence of North’s motivation with respect to the use of those funds becomes irrelevant,” Walsh said.

North’s lawyers, on the other hand, contend that “classified information pervades the remaining charges as well.”

The remaining counts charge North with obstruction of congressional investigations, making false statements, lying to former Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III and obstructing a presidential inquiry, destroying or altering official documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, converting travelers’ checks to his own use and conspiring to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.

Walsh said that North may try “to import classified information into the case through two alternative lines of defense” but argued that both should be blocked because “they will only invite the jury to consider irrelevant evidence.”

North “may argue that he lied, altered and falsified documents because he was directed to and/or because his acts were otherwise justified,” Walsh said.

In arguing against allowing the use of such a defense, Walsh cited “the requirement that all citizens obey the law. An individual will not be excused for lying no matter how ‘good’ or ‘compelling’ his motivation is for telling the lie.”

North may contend that he did not lie or obstruct inquiries, contending that he had no reason to do so “because everything he did was authorized and perfectly legal,” Walsh said.

But Walsh said that such a defense should be barred because “no executive branch official could authorize North to obstruct a congressional inquiry.” Moreover, “the fact that other executive branch officials allegedly knew of North’s activities could not negate the fact that legitimate congressional inquiries were thwarted,” he said.