Moore Tells of Returning Sting Payment : Corruption trial: She appears as the first defense witness in Montoya case. But her testimony seems to do more to bolster the prosecution’s side.

Assemblywoman Gwen Moore, in her first public statement about payments she received from federal undercover agents, said Tuesday she returned one $5,000 campaign contribution in 1986 because it appeared to be a bribe.

But the Los Angeles Democrat said she kept a $2,000 donation two years later from undercover operatives posing as businessmen because they attended one of her fund-raising events. “They bought tickets, they came to my fund-raiser, they ate my food and so I kept the money,” she told reporters.

Moore’s comments came after she testified as the first defense witness in the federal trial of state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), who faces 12 counts of extortion, racketeering, bribery and money laundering stemming from the federal undercover investigation of political corruption in the state Capitol.

Moore, who unwittingly carried two bills for dummy companies set up by the FBI, is one of at least five state elected officials who remain under investigation in the probe.

Outside the courtroom, Moore told reporters that she now believes she was tape-recorded in 1986 by an undercover agent using the name Jack Gordon. Gordon--in reality FBI Agent Jack Brennan--was posing as an Alabama businessman who was seeking special legislative help in opening a shrimp processing plant near Sacramento.

At one point, Moore said, Gordon approached her and asked if the payment she had received was “enough.”

“It sounded like he thought he was giving me a bribe,” she said. “I didn’t like his attitude.”

Moore said she was unaware at that time that Gordon’s “company,” Gulf Shrimp Fisheries, had given her campaign a $5,000 contribution. She recalled that she told him, “I’m sure whatever you gave was enough.”

Upon learning later that the “company” had made the large donation, she said she promptly returned the money.

However, her 1986 experience with Gordon did not stop her from carrying a similar bill to help the shrimp company in 1988 when a new cast of undercover informants approached her office. This time around, Moore kept the $2,000 contribution made by a second dummy FBI company when agents purchased four $500 tickets to a fund-raiser.

“I’ve done nothing wrong,” Moore told reporters. “I’ve tried to cooperate with every legitimate investigation. I have nothing to hide.”

Until Tuesday, Moore had not spoken with federal investigators or with Montoya’s lawyers. U.S. Atty. David F. Levi made a point of noting before her testimony that she is under active investigation.

The assemblywoman was called to the stand by Montoya’s attorneys to explain her role as legislative author of the two bills that were planted as part of the federal sting operation. The defense also called to the stand Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy of Fresno, who managed one of the bills on the Senate floor in 1988.

But the testimony of both legislators appeared to do more to bolster the prosecution than to aid the defense. Both Moore and Maddy said they did not take part in the kind of activities Montoya is accused of engaging in--including receiving a $3,000 honorarium at a breakfast meeting shortly before one of the bills was scheduled for a vote.

Under cross-examination by Levi, Moore and Maddy said they never solicited campaign contributions or other payments from the undercover agents.

“You did not ask for anything?” Levi asked Maddy.

“That’s correct,” the senator replied.

“And you would not?” the prosecutor said.

“That’s correct,” Maddy said.

To some degree, Montoya’s attorneys were handicapped by a ruling from U.S. District Judge Milton Schwartz, who prohibited the defense from asking the legislators why they pushed the measure. Schwartz ruled that the motives of the legislators in backing the bills was irrelevant in establishing the reasons for Montoya’s actions.

In his testimony, Maddy said he does not know at this point how he became the Senate floor manager for the bill in 1988 except that it was arranged by someone on his staff.

The Senate GOP leader said it was a surprise to him when the bill came up for action and he was called on by the presiding officer of the Senate to present the bill. He looked on his desk, he said, and found a prepared statement on the bill for him to read.

There was no debate on the measure and it quickly passed, the entire matter taking only a minute, he said. He later chastised members of his staff for agreeing that he would handle the bill, he said.

In her testimony, Moore said she agreed to author both versions of the bill because the measure would have helped the “company” provide 35 to 40 new jobs, most of them for minority and low-income people.

The bill was actually written by FBI agents and the U.S. attorney’s office, according to George Murray, an undercover FBI agent who testified earlier in the trial.

In calling Moore to the stand, defense attorney Michael Sands had hoped to demonstrate that Montoya also supported the measure because of the prospects for increased minority employment.

However, Moore testified that she did not recall whether Montoya was in attendance at a Senate committee meeting when she presented her arguments on behalf of the bill. And, she said, she never had a private conversation with Montoya about the bill. Similarly, Maddy told the jury that he never discussed the bill with Montoya.